'For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage player, or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves than they can combine existence with non-existence'.

- Benedict de Spinoza. Political Treatise. 1677.




Monday, August 23, 2010

on certainty 604


604. In a court of law the statement of a physicist that water boils at about 100 degrees C. would be accepted unconditionally as truth.

If I mistrusted this statement what could I do to undermine it? Set up experiments myself? What would they prove?



whether or not the statement is accepted as unconditionally true in a court of law –

is not relevant here –

any proposition – regardless of whether it has the backing of so called ‘authorities’ –

is a proposal

that is to say – open to question – open to doubt –

to ‘mistrust’ it – is to question the proposition –

to doubt it –

that is to say – to understand it

any experiment you perform –

will be open to question –

open to doubt –

if by ‘proof’ you mean –

reaching a conclusion that is certain –

there is no proof


© greg t.charlton. 2010.