Template talk:Certainty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there an order to these subject? it seems to have some, and then it gets all screwed up. can someone please elaborate on the order methology of these subtopics? --Procrastinating@talk2me 20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By looking at the history, looks like that's just how they were added. -b 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool, in that case, i have reordered them by deterministic attributes.Procrastinating@talk2me 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Could randomness possibly be included in this series? I'm not sure exactly what criteria are used here so I'm not really sure whether it fits in or not. Richard001 06:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Randomness is not an intelligent act of will, as it subverts any intentionality. So, No. This got nothing to do with it.--Procrastinating@talk2me 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can be certain of the randomness of the list. Also, I included epsitimology. does anyone disagree to my change? How about doubt and uncertainty? or would that be opposite of what should be on the certainty list? --Tsinoyboi 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree. The philisophical teachinhg of the limitaion of knowledge is not a lvevl of our title. it is the faculty of the mind that explores it, not a property of logic and knowledge. Adding this wowuld constitue a like --Procrastinating@talk2me 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)you made a category mistake. Using epiusimological "knowhow" is described under Justified true belief. So said I holding this to be an absolute trancedental Goldy truth..:)
--Procrastinating@talk2me 11:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Actually, i just added doubt since uncertainty was already on it. Isn't that biased to exclude epistemology? How can u verify "trancedental Godly truth"? Should agnosticism even be on here? Agnosticism is a philosophical position about knowing and what can or can't be known also. How do u know that's true about certainty? Does it comply with WP:V Wp:OR and WP:INDY? --Tsinoyboi 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought given the nature of this "article" it was obvious that I was kidding about the Godly trancedental truth thing, lighten up man. I'll try to summerize it. --Procrastinating@talk2me 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get how Determinism fits into this list but Skepticism doesn't. The two are like different sides of the same coin. And like somebody said doubt is "essence of negating certainty" which is almost the same thing as Uncertainty, which is on the list.--King Mir 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Legends, trying to be as quintessential as possbile

  • Nihilism -Everything is possibly not true, does not even exist, I dont care.
  • Agnosticism -some thing may be other than they seem, it is impossible to know, so irelvant for discussion.
  • Uncertainty -Some thing are true, I cant be "sure" which ones.
  • Probability -Some thing are true, I have a function to decleare relative truth by relativly negating others.
  • Estimation -Some things are true, I can approximate the way these things look like, without "knwoing" them directly.
  • Belief -I have no proof, yet I tend to think some are truth.
  • Justified true belief -I belive my truth to be so, and They are indeed so.
  • Certainty -There are truths, I know them.
  • Determinism -Truths are all there is, the world is ruled by dogmatism alone, there are no issues at which relative truths are relevant.

*Doubt -this is the essence of negating certainty, not a level of it's it. Inclusion of this in the list is a category mistake. like putting in a list of fish species the word "Fish" --Procrastinating@talk2me 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah I didn't realize the link to justified true belief was actually the epistimology page. Thanks for the explanation of each term. I kind of see a relationship between these; but is there a way to define what it needs to be? I wouldn't say levels of certainty. The certainty page sure doesn't explain it. I guess they all seem like conclusions. They all involve concluding something as truth or as end of discussion. There's probably more to it. So are these arranged in a specific order or should they be alphabetical? --Tsinoyboi 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a Certainty series specifically for this box?

Oh ya, and do you think these cancel each other out? or can some like agnosciticsm and theism fit together? I guess belief and certainty could fit together. I've been trying to get a discussion on Agnostic theism going and even been working on my own version, User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic theism, but I won't edit the main page until it's clear that what i wrote fits the policies. --Tsinoyboi 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

why is there so much vandalism on this page now and no one just trying to explain why they don't like this box? --Tsinoyboi 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From deleted page Talk:Certainty series

I think this box needs an explanation page Here's a rough example

i copied this from Procrastinating@talk2me

[edit] Legends, trying to be as quintessential as possible

  • Nihilism -Everything is possibly not true, does not even exist, I dont care.
  • Agnosticism -some thing may be other than they seem, it is impossible to know, so irelvant for discussion.
  • Uncertainty -Some thing are true, I cant be "sure" which ones.
  • Probability -Some thing are true, I have a function to decleare relative truth by relativly negating others.
  • Estimation -Some things are true, I can approximate the way these things look like, without "knwoing" them directly.
  • Belief -I have no proof, yet I tend to think some are truth.
  • Justified true belief -I belive my truth to be so, and They are indeed so.
  • Certainty -There are truths, I know them.
  • Determinism -Truths are all there is, the world is ruled by dogmatism alone, there are no issues at which relative truths are relevant.

should it be put as the main page? --Tsinoyboi 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So anyone wanna discuss this? how about the certainty series box?

[edit] Legends, revised

  • Nihilism holds that there is no inherent meaning, value, truth or purpose to the world.
  • Agnosticism holds that the truth is either not known or inherently unknowable.
  • Uncertainty is the state of being in doubt.
  • Probability is a function used to assign odds to that which is unknown by way of what is known.
  • Estimation Deals with inexact representation.
  • Belief is the state of holding what is not certain to be true.
  • Justified true belief is what is both believed and true.
  • Certainty is the state of being without doubt.
  • Determinism holds that all occurances are causally determined by unbroken chains of previous occurances.

Feel free to suggest further revisions. -FrostyBytes 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll change it now. Still open to discussion and further revisions, though. The only question now is how are they related and what makes this a series? Hmm needs an outside source. --Tsinoyboi 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this series should be named the epistemology series, since that is the subject of the study of certainty, knowledge, etc? -FrostyBytes 10:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that sounds better. Supposedly it looked to me like it was was supposed to be several conclusions of of world views. However, that's probably a better title. I'm not at disagreement to make that change. --Tsinoyboi 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TFD

I spoke to my Philosophy prof about the "certainty series" and he had never heard of it. Furthermore, browsing the internet, i've found absolutely no justification for a certainty series. If this is original research, it has no place in wikipedia. Otherwise, there need to be citations for where this information was found. Archtemplar 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find a prof' to not know things about most articles in here. If it's not a main stream lingo, it is still useful in categorizing articles in wikipedia, as "Philosophy navigational boxes" not a philosophical paradigm. Most of the categories here have no professor to assign authority to them, they are a tool, not a profession of academic consensus. --Procrastinating@talk2me 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


I am distrustful of this grouping of things. I just looked at it and literally laughed out loud. Philosophical epistemology (viz Skepticism, Nihilism) has little to do with the mathematics of dealing with uncertainty. I understand that the explanation of some interpretations of exactly what uncertainty/probability mean could be interpreted as being "philosophical," but I certainly do not think a discussion of Skepticism concerning knowledge or the nature of Justified True Belief, for example, should be so explicitly categorized the same as, say, probability. I dunno. Just my two cents. --ILikeThings 22:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


This box does not add value to any of the pages it appears on, and the descriptions for the series entries seem very ad hoc. I've wanted to see it deleted since I first laid eyes on it months ago. 72.34.65.114 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/r/Template_talk%7ECertainty_4dbf.html"