> Just to avoid that confusion: "certain" is not the same as "so incredibly sure that it would be world-shattering to discover otherwise", even though the former often is used colloquially to mean the latter. I'm pretty sure that that is some equivocation that's going on here.
I don't mean "so incredibly sure that it would be world-shattering to discover otherwise" when I say certain. I mean "Known for sure; established beyond doubt".
> So, you are saying that there is a claim that you are absolutely certain about?
Yes. I've already said so. Consider re-reading my previous comment in light of my response "to avoid that confusion".
> There is nothing in not being absolutely certain about anything that prevents you from still coming to conclusions and acting on them, and in many cases at least locally successfully so.
Agreed. Those conclusions have less basis, but our knowledge can wind up aligned with the truth without us being certain.
> There is nothing in reality, as far as I am aware, that guarantees that you can be certain about anything.
Then we are done with our conversation. If you can't be certain of anything, then all of logic is suspect.
This flies in the face of a comment you've made previously in two ways, both regarding logic and your awareness: "Which you can't [with your senses, demonstrate that the claim "our senses have at least one way in which they are reliable" is false] because it's a logical contradiction to show that a tautological claim is false."
I don't mean "so incredibly sure that it would be world-shattering to discover otherwise" when I say certain. I mean "Known for sure; established beyond doubt".
> So, you are saying that there is a claim that you are absolutely certain about?
Yes. I've already said so. Consider re-reading my previous comment in light of my response "to avoid that confusion".
> There is nothing in not being absolutely certain about anything that prevents you from still coming to conclusions and acting on them, and in many cases at least locally successfully so.
Agreed. Those conclusions have less basis, but our knowledge can wind up aligned with the truth without us being certain.
> There is nothing in reality, as far as I am aware, that guarantees that you can be certain about anything.
Then we are done with our conversation. If you can't be certain of anything, then all of logic is suspect.
This flies in the face of a comment you've made previously in two ways, both regarding logic and your awareness: "Which you can't [with your senses, demonstrate that the claim "our senses have at least one way in which they are reliable" is false] because it's a logical contradiction to show that a tautological claim is false."