Question

: Why is it challenging to assert certainty, especially when claiming that something does not exist, such as unicorns? The common argument against certainty is that we can't disprove all kinds of unicorns, including invisible or undetectable ones, making absolute certainty difficult. However, doesn't this assumption of undetectable unicorns itself rely on axioms? Why is it considered rational to assert uncertainty ("I can't know for sure that unicorns don't exist") while asserting certainty ("I am certain that unicorns don't exist") is often deemed irrational? How do philosophical concepts like certainty, doubt, and epistemic uncertainty play into our understanding of assertions regarding existence or non-existence?

Answer 1

Asserting certainty in the non-existence of entities like unicorns is challenging due to epistemic uncertainty and the inherent difficulties in proving a negative. Philosophical skepticism and concepts like absence of evidence lead many philosophers to favor an admission of uncertainty rather than unfounded certainty.

Step-by-step explanation:

The challenge in asserting certainty about the non-existence of entities like unicorns arises from the philosophical concept of epistemic uncertainty. To claim certainty in such matters would require evidence that is often unobtainable, thus creating doubt. For example, asserting the non-existence of invisible unicorns relies on the assumption that if they were undetectable, we could not interact with them to prove their non-existence. As such, philosophers argue that knowledge does not require absolute certainty; rather, it can exist with a degree of doubt, making a rational assertion of uncertainty.

When discussing the existence of entities or beings, such as God or moral values, skeptics like David Hume and Blaise Pascal suggest that the lack of empirical evidence or the inherent limitations of human understanding preclude certainty. Moreover, as Kant pointed out with his critique of Anselm's ontological argument, existence is not a predicate that improves the concept of an entity. Thus, along with the understanding that attempting to prove a general negative is logically impossible, the rational stance is often to acknowledge uncertainty than to assert certainty without irrefutable evidence.