The Falsehood of Emperical Agnosticism

One cannot escape the conclusion that nothing is known with absolute certainty. To whatever extent we may claim that a belief is true, we must also admit, at the same time, that it is contingent upon experience and thus always subject to revision.

I can see that you are enjoying your sophomore year. Seriously, your contention that "nothing is known with absolute certainty" is provably false. Is there any doubt that the earth rotates around the sun, that blood circulates through your body, or that you will die if you ingest cyanide? On metaphysical or linguistic question, your epistomological agnosticism might have some warrent. But when applied to statements of emperical fact, your conclusion that no knowledge can be known with certainty is rubbish.

Just how do you prove what you said unless we use methods of statistics or uncertainty? On what grounds do you demonstrate that in particular- not just assert it is not the case? Sure, we seem to understand on one level that "nothing in itself" has a sort of certainty in the thinking processes. This is a consistent view- despite one can truly argue if the earth is a center of the universe of if blood circulates throughout the body (both major breakthrough discoveries of course) and there is a rumor that some taking cyanide have survived it by their strength of mind- who is to say that in some other matrix this pill could be the truth of things? I mean while we forbid division by zero it should be clear we cannot talk about such realms in a empirical or psychological manner. Or can we?

Argumentum ad matrix? Hmm. It seems to me that we live in a world where there are mirages, dreams, delusions, and madmen. But none of that negates the existence of reality separate from our impressions and emotions. That you are real-- that you are drinking soda rather than bleach-- that you will sleep tonight, perchance to dream, but wake up tomorrow in a world of real things-- is a common-sense given accepted by any creature with consciousness. Some things can be detected by external devices. This book weighs two pounds and not two tons, for example, and that weight has nothing to do with "my truth"-- a construct that doesn't exist in reality. It is what it is-- an absolute truth. And, as other people have mentioned, your theory collapses into incoherence. Is truth relative? Fine, then that statement "truth is relative" must also be relative and therefore not relative. Is truth verifiable? Fine, then verify that asssertion. Is truth falsifiable? Fine, then falsify the claim that truth is falsifiable. As alluring as your theory is, it ultimately is an intellectual dead end that puts into the same category of skepticism flat earth theorists and round earth theoritists. And also in that category is skepticism about even language itself including our ability to use symbols that each other can understand-- a claim that you implicitly reject by responding to these posts!