If something is 99.99999 percent likely to be true, such as the age of the earth at well over 3 1/2 billion years, why does that last .00001 percent matter?
Obviously it matters to the detractors of the theory, but why does something have to be 100% true in order to be a fact? Whats wrong with 99.999% true?
The important thing is, when we believe something to be true, we alter our behavior and make choices based on that belief, so as long as its 99%, 98% likely, or even 85%…I would think our definition of “truth” should rest and we can move on under that assumption.
Perhaps then truth’s necessary likelyhood is relative to the degree of influence it has, rather than having to be 100% all the time.
For example: If a person’s eternal soul is in the balance, there is no chance for appeal for all eternity etc. then the burden of a premise that decides that fate should be 100%. Absolute consequence requires absolute truth. No debate possible.
However, if a person is deciding to head out for groceries, and there is a chance they might get into a car accident, although there’s only a 1 in 1000 chance of that happening, the person will go on as if it is true that they will not get into an accident, even though its only 99.9% true.
thoughts? - last thread I will start today - promise.
Well, one reason is so you can keep your mind open to new evidence. If you think something is absolutely 100% true, and that’s there’s no chance it’s wrong, you won’t accept any evidence that it is wrong.
That’s fair enough, in cases where such evidence is presented, or even where the person making the <100% argument is interested in evidence, but in debates over the age of the earth and other creationist stuff, that doesn’t generally happen.
So: “You cannot be certain, and here’s some evidence that I think challenges your position” is fine, but “You cannot be certain, so you’re wrong” is useless.
Of course, the purely mathematical approach is that, if I hold 70+ beliefs that are each 99% likely to be true, then it’s more likely than not that at least one of them is wrong. If, of those, the one that is wrong is the most important (ie, regarding your immortal soul, or whatever else), then that just plain sucks for you. Of course, as a human being that’s a very poor outlook to have and I would tend to agree with Mangetout’s conclusion.
However, I also think there are some things that warrant being as close to 100% certain as possible. I can rest assured that 100% of the time, because of the laws of gravity, when I set something on the table that it is not going to randomly float away. However, even with a minute amount of doubt on something very important like our origins, or destinations, etc., we become uneasy. I suppose there’s some kind of formula where the severity of the issue is directly proportional to the amount of certainty we need to be comfortable; thus, since there exists issues of absolute importance to some people then they must also be uncomfortable with anything less than absolute certainty.
Where do you draw that line? If you tell me there is a 99.999% chance that I won’t be hit by lightning today, I’ll head off to work. If you tell me there is an 85% chance that I won’t be hit today, I may decide to stay in bed this morning.
Not correct. If something is 85% probably to be true, I’m not acting on it as a truth, I’m acting on the probablity. Once I’ve made that calculation (risk vs benefit) then I can move on based on my assumption.
The fact may be that a given medication or action doesn’t damage most people. The fact is not that the med or action doesn’t damage people. Part of my decision process will be, how big is that most-factor.
On a certain philosophical level, there are things which we can NEVER know to 100% truth. As a simple example, suppose you wanted to determine whether a coin was complete fair or not ONLY by flipping it, you can’t examine it or weigh it or anything else. You flip it 100 times and you get 45 heads, 55 tails. Well, theres a ~30% chance that a fair coin would get that result. What if you flipped it 1000 times and got 450 heads and 550 tails? Well, theres still a 0.1% chance of a fair coin doing that but we can be 99.9% sure the coin isn’t fair.
A similar thing happens all the time in say, drug trials. A successful drug trial isn’t a GUARENTEE that a drug works, it could have just been random chance. Generally, however, the standard is if theres 95% certainty that something is true, it’s sufficient to act as if it were true.
I saw the percentages and the first thing I thought of was poker. In Texas holdem for instance, how many times have you seen a guy with only a 3% chance to win? The other guy may have the “best hand”, when in fact this is not true yet until the river. The underdog can still draw out the best hand, making his opponent with a 97% chance of winning with the best hand, not so “best” anymore. Therefore, assuming the truth because you think something is over 90% true, is not truth, but as mentioned earlier, probability/speculation that it might be true.
With that said, 99.99999% is certainly favorable for any positive expectation, but I won’t discount that .00001%. Because it’s still a chance that what is speculated could be wrong in the final outcome, even though it would defy all odds.
Doesn’t current thinking in the world of Quantum Physics include the “uncertainty principle”?That is I may unsuccessfully try to put my hand through a solid concrete wall thousand upon thousands of times but theoretically one day it COULD go all the way through.
Iconfess I dont understand the thinking behind it; but if it IS true then nothing can be 100% certain.even" universal constants" may not be so constant .In The New Scientist I think about 18 months ago it reported that some physicists believe that they have found evidence that the speed of light has diminished a tiny but measurable amount since the Big bang.
That said I am not a creationist or attempting to defend creationists.
Even without the uncertainty principle it is entirely possible, without violation of known physical laws. that all the molecules of your hand and of the wall would simply, at that moment, be perfectly aligned so as to slide past each other. Just as it is possible that the molecules of air in the room you are sitting in now, just by their random Brownian motion, will in the next moment all crowd into one corner of the room, leaving you sitting in vaccum; but the probability is so remote as to be dismissed.
