On Abandoning Certainty

Introduction

In my journey through Atheism and, more importantly, Skepticism, I’ve found myself in a state of constant flux. More recently, I’ve come to realize that even my position of Atheism is really nothing more than a side-effect of my Skepticism. Furthermore, and in this same vein, I’ve realized that any position which I arrive at will ultimately be a result of my Skeptical mindset.

In coming to this realization, I’ve had to acknowledge the fact that no matter what conclusions I arrive at, I must abandon any inclinations I have toward certainty. And before I get too much into this idea of certainty, I should probably do a bit of explaining.

On Expertise

Obviously, no one can possibly be an expert on everything. Most of us are lucky to be an expert on a very few select things. A select few of us are even fortunate enough to be an expert in a handful of topics. In considering this fact, it stands to reason that there will be things which an individual cannot come to know given his own capacities. He must acquire this knowledge from someone who is an expert in the particular field in question.

Because one inevitably will be required to consult experts for information, there is a certain responsibility that comes with seeking that information. This responsibility is in understanding how to filter information in an intellectually honest way.

The Internet has done much for the proliferation of information; both good and bad, correct and incorrect. It’s now possible for anyone to create a website and claim to be an expert on anything and be capable of garnering a worldwide audience. Because of this, it becomes easy to choose a position, search for information which confirms that position, and to reject any evidence that conflicts with that specific information.

So the question becomes, “How does one arrive at “correct” information?” The first step in this process is having a willingness to consider all of the evidence. Now, as I said, there is a vast amount of information out there, and to consider “all” of the evidence would be nearly impossible. Because of this fact, one must engage in a balancing act. One must consider how important the issue at hand happens to be and the amount of time one is willing to invest in researching the topic.

But, I think before this research can take place, and realistically, before one can even begin one’s journey in searching for “correct” information, there must be a foundation one can build from. Now, I am far from an expert, but I want to share what I’ve learned about this foundational knowledge.

Foundations

I’ve found that at the very least, a basic, fundamental knowledge of logic is required. Without this, it is easy to be fooled and deceived by faulty arguments. Think of this understanding of logic as a defense mechanism. One who is disseminating faulty information must rely on bad logic in order to persuade others that this information is correct.

I’ve also found that it is very important to be acutely aware of one’s own emotional reaction to evidence which conflicts with one’s own perspective. If you find yourself having a strong emotional reaction to information which conflicts with your own point of view, you should be very wary of this. It is a sign that your position is not founded upon evidence, but on how the position makes you feel.

Now, I will admit that there are situations in which an emotional reaction is warranted. I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m merely saying that emotional reactions need to be monitored, and the causes of which need to be assessed. Essentially, I’m making the case that evidence should not elicit an emotional reaction. I think the bottom line is that intellectual honesty should be the goal.

On Certainty

And now I come to this issue of certainty. The simple fact of the matter is that one can ever be 100% certain about anything. This is because to assert 100% certainty is to assert absolute knowledge. And, to assert absolute knowledge is an argument from ignorance – a logical fallacy. It works like this…

Person A says, “I am 100% certain that statement X is true.” Person B asks person A, “Have you considered every other possibility?” Person A must admit that he’s only considered a finite number of alternatives. Person A’s position ends up being, “After considering a finite number of possibilities concerning statement X, none of these possibilities have persuaded me to change my opinion. Therefore, statement X must be absolutely true.”

Do you see the problem with this line of argumentation? By asserting that statement X is absolutely true based on a finite amount of information, person A has committed the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It is for this reason that one can never be absolutely certain of anything. All positions must be held tentatively. In other words, there is never a point one can reach where all of the data has come in, where one can arrive at a final conclusion.

There are times when one can be fairly confident in where the evidence points. But, even in these circumstances, there will always be possibilities which haven’t been considered. Take evolution, for example.

There is a vast amount of evidence to support Evolutionary Theory. In fact, there is enough evidence out there for it to be unreasonable to deny that evolution has taken place, and continues to do so. But, the evidence is still coming in. What we know of the evolutionary process is still limited, regardless of how much we do know.

Put simply, there is never a “final word” on anything. While we are confident in asserting that evolution is the mechanism for how life adapts and changes, it is also possible that some unforeseen evidence could come in which changes how we view this process. While it is highly unlikely that such evidence would come to light at this point in our understanding of evolution, it is not intellectually honest to disregard the possibility offhandedly. Again, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. We can only consider the evidence at hand.

Conclusion

I want to conclude by saying that absolute certainty should be completely abandoned, and anyone who claims to be absolutely certain about anything should be taught about the “argument from ignorance” fallacy. I think that the only possible intellectually honest position one can take is to align one’s self with the state of the available evidence at hand.