my suggestions of seeking knowledge.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seemed to answer it pretty easily when you decided that neither science nor reason (redundant, but whatevs) could provide certainty.  The mind boggles as to what you think could, with those two being out of the running.

(It doesn't..I already know, but I'm playing along, lol)

Reason is the only way to certainty from my point of view. Don't misunderstand. However, as we can err or not really grasp inferences from reason, it doesn't guarantee certainty.

I think the more we use reason, it will eventually be strong enough to grasp and have vision of certainty in inferences that others might not grasp.

Scientific method uses hypothesis, sees observations that confirm it, and concludes hypothesis is strong, but it's not conclusive as it's circular in reasoning and really is just pragmatic as a working model.

Reason is provisional.  You ruled it out when you ruled out the provisional certitude of science..which..ofc, rests on reason in the first place.

In any case, reason isn't what gives you "visions". Cmon, lol. It's super simple. Either you have a problem with conditionals or you don't. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't.

[Mystic]

Reason is the only way to certainty from my point of view. Don't misunderstand. However, as we can err or not really grasp inferences from reason, it doesn't guarantee certainty.

I think the more we use reason, it will eventually be strong enough to grasp and have vision of certainty in inferences that others might not grasp.

Scientific method uses hypothesis, sees observations that confirm it, and concludes hypothesis is strong, but it's not conclusive as it's circular in reasoning and really is just pragmatic as a working model.

Reason is provisional.  You ruled it out when you ruled out the provisional certitude of science..which..ofc, rests on reason in the first place.

In any case, reason isn't what gives you "visions".  Cmon, lol.

Reason can be both provisional or it can be with vision of certainty.

For example, I can be sure of 1+1=2. Or as a kid, before grasping what it meant, I might be provisionally sure, since all the grown ups act sure about it (and they are sure about it).

[The Grand Nudger]

Reason can be both provisional or it can be with vision of certainty.

........................

For example, I can be sure of 1+1=2.

You can be sure it describes a system, I guess..unless..you know..you have no means of certainty.  I'm not sure why it matters, though?

If you have one chestnut, and you get another chestnut, then you have two chestnuts.  Do you think this is different from any "scientific" proposition?  We defined our variables and expressed our conditionals, and if they are true then this or that follows. That is what it means for something to offer provisional certitude. -If-.....then.

Or as a kid, before grasping what it meant, I might be provisional sure, since all the grown ups act sure about it (and they are sure about it).

..........................?

[Mystic]

Scientific observations are correct and can be certain knowledge.

The method of hypothesis, observation, then conclusion, can never yield certainty as it's circular in reasoning, and all it can do it create a working model that we can work with in the real world.

However like I said there is potentially more hypothesis that work with the data and that data confirms in the same way, it's just due to various factors that have nothing to do with science or reason, we don't entertain them.

It's even more problematic when we make it so the explanation or hypothesis has to be the most simplified version that goes with the data, only that later, we learn complexities that cannot be solved with the simplicity, and hence either stay put for a while on it or eventually learn to move from it.

And it's highly problematic, when we just briefly survey data, and don't really investigate the details of the theory and see if it stands to scrutiny.

---

As well, usually there is the over all data that works with the model, and it's edge cases that really screw it up.

And of course if you don't look at the edge cases or the details, it will seem true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Scientific observations are correct and can be certain knowledge.

............

The method of hypothesis, observation, then conclusion, can never yield certainty as it's circular in reasoning, and all it can do it create a working model that we can work with in the real world.

This guy named "mystic" disagrees, up above.

However like I said there is potentially more hypothesis that work with the data and that data confirms in the same way, it's just due to various factors that have nothing to do with science or reason, we don't entertain them.

It's even more problematic when we make it so the explanation or hypothesis has to be the most simplified version that goes with the data, only that later, we learn complexities that cannot be solved with the simplicity, and hence either stay put for a while on it or eventually learn to move from it.

And it's highly problematic, when we just briefly survey data, and don't really investigate the details of the theory and see if it stands to scrutiny.

---

As well, usually there is the over all data that works with the model, and it's edge cases that really screw it up.

And of course if you don't look at the edge cases or the details, it will seem true.

Cool story, but.......?  

I mean, if you agree that science can provide certain knowledge, the root of the disagreement between us is dead.  You do think, contrary to your previous assertions, that science is capable of certainty and have no problems accepting provisional certitude or conditionals as meaningfully certain.

[Mystic]

Most of what science touches and teaches is through perspective of the scientific method, which is circular in reasoning (as taught by all Professors that teach logic), but is pragmatic in providing a working model with data.

I said observations can be facts and yield certainty said so from the start.

If science moves away from the scientific method which is circular in reasoning and can never be conclusive in yielding certainty, that yes, it can make positive claims.

But right now observations while can do away with perspectives that are false, and often do with certainty, they often do away with things they think are false but haven't really done away with it, but all they have done is provided a different working model, that may or may not hold when investigating more details of the data or realizing different perspectives of the data, or dealing with edge cases.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most of what science touches and teaches is through perspective of the scientific method, which is circular in reasoning (as taught by all Professors that teach logic), but is pragmatic in providing a working model with data.

If you say so, but if that;s the case then neither "science" noir "reason" can provide provisional certitude.  -and here we go on the merry go round.....again.

I said observations can be facts and yield certainty said so from the start.

Sure, but some of the things you've said are incompatible with other things you've said.  I offer no argument one way or another.  

If science moves away from the scientific method which is circular in reasoning and can never be conclusive in yielding certainty, that yes, it can make positive claims.

But right now observations while can do away with perspectives that are false, and often do with certainty, they often do away with things they think are false but haven't really done away with it, but all they have done is provided a different working model, that may or may not hold when investigating more details of the data or realizing different perspectives of the data, or dealing with edge cases.

"If it moves away", or it's fundamentally so...and isn't this a conditional statement regardless?  How certain are you?

[Brian37]

Scientific observations are correct and can be certain knowledge.

The method of hypothesis, observation, then conclusion, can never yield certainty as it's circular in reasoning, and all it can do it create a working model that we can work with in the real world.

However like I said there is potentially more hypothesis that work with the data and that data confirms in the same way, it's just due to various factors that have nothing to do with science or reason, we don't entertain them.

It's even more problematic when we make it so the explanation or hypothesis has to be the most simplified version that goes with the data, only that later, we learn complexities that cannot be solved with the simplicity, and hence either stay put for a while on it or eventually learn to move from it.

And it's highly problematic, when we just briefly survey data, and don't really investigate the details of the theory and see if it stands to scrutiny.

---

As well, usually there is the over all data that works with the model, and it's edge cases that really screw it up.

And of course if you don't look at the edge cases or the details, it will seem true.

As soon as anyone of ANY religion brings up science they fail.

I am not singling you out, I would say the same to Jews and Christians and Buddhists and Hindus.

Scientific method is a tool, a process. It is not a religion. It isn't there to prop up the Bible, Koran, Jewish OT or Buddha or Hindu Vedas.

Scientific method is why computers exist in every nation. Scientific method is why a several ton 747 passenger jet carries passengers all over the world. Scientific method is why we update flu vaccines every year.

[Mystic]

Khemikal, it seems we agree but you misunderstand my position.

Brian, I won't discuss religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unlikely.  I probably agree with your position..but you can't bring yourself to agree with your position...whenever it conflicts with  Some other Thing™.

I'm comfortable with scientific and reasonable certainty, despite their (or because of their) provisional nature. Are you?