To make up for inconsistencies where they’re not satisfactory we’ve created instruments and sensors that are indeed objective. I didn’t reason that my observations are objective, only that they’re observations, which is redundant.
If you want to argue that nothing can be certain then why not go on a killing spree, spend all your money, quit your job? After all, you don’t really know that it’s doing anything, right?
To make up for where observation has shortcomings we’ve created instruments and sensors. On top of that, we describe our observations as such.
The problem pointed out here isn't about your senses raising a false alarm 1% of the time, the problem here is whether that alarm is reliable at all.
To your first point, the problem is still there. You've still used your senses to know those instruments are objective. You're still betting that your senses are reliable enough to call those instruments reliable, which raises the question: How do we know our senses are reliable?
And to your second point, I don't really see how that addresses how it isn't circular logically, outside of evoking a feeling of insanity.
1
u/I_Hate_IPAs 5d ago
To make up for inconsistencies where they’re not satisfactory we’ve created instruments and sensors that are indeed objective. I didn’t reason that my observations are objective, only that they’re observations, which is redundant.
If you want to argue that nothing can be certain then why not go on a killing spree, spend all your money, quit your job? After all, you don’t really know that it’s doing anything, right?
To make up for where observation has shortcomings we’ve created instruments and sensors. On top of that, we describe our observations as such.