Template talk:Certainty sidebar

comment
Is there an order to these subject? it seems to have some, and then it gets all screwed up. can someone please elaborate on the order methology of these subtopics? -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By looking at the history, looks like that's just how they were added. -b 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, in that case, i have reordered them by deterministic attributes. Procrastinating@ talk2me 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC determined

Could randomness possibly be included in this series? I'm not sure exactly what criteria are used here so I'm not really sure whether it fits in or not. Richard001 06:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Randomness is not an intelligent act of will, as it subverts any intentionality. So, No. This got nothing to do with it.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can be certain of the randomness of the list. Also, I included epsitimology. does anyone disagree to my change? How about doubt and uncertainty? or would that be opposite of what should be on the certainty list? --Tsinoyboi 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. The philisophical teachinhg of the limitaion of knowledge is not a lvevl of our title. it is the faculty of the mind that explores it, not a property of logic and knowledge. Adding this wowuld constitue a like -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)you made a category mistake. Using epiusimological "knowhow" is described under Justified true belief. So said I holding this to be an absolute trancedental Goldy truth..:)
 * -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 11:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, i just added doubt since uncertainty was already on it. Isn't that biased to exclude epistemology? How can u verify "trancedental Godly truth"? Should agnosticism even be on here? Agnosticism is a philosophical position about knowing and what can or can't be known also. How do u know that's true about certainty? Does it comply with WP:V Wp:OR and WP:INDY? --Tsinoyboi 15:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought given the nature of this "article" it was obvious that I was kidding about the Godly trancedental truth thing, lighten up man. I'll try to summerize it. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get how Determinism fits into this list but Skepticism doesn't. The two are like different sides of the same coin. And like somebody said doubt is "essence of negating certainty" which is almost the same thing as Uncertainty, which is on the list.--King Mir 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the opposite of Skepticism would be belief or something, and the opposite of determinism would be probabilistic indeterminism or perhaps just indeterminism. 173.79.201.126 (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, consider adding Anekantavada, a concept in Jain philosophy which directly addresses the knowability of truths and their subtle, manifold nature, which transcends articulation. The analogy of "the blind men and the elephant" is a typical example, wherein various blind men "know" an particular part of an elephant, by touch, and each declares the animal to be very different from how the others describe it. The idea being that they are all partially correct, but their interpretation is clouded by assumptions about the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:48:C602:62E0:DC4B:9528:EA1A:F10F (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Legends, trying to be as quintessential as possible

 * Nihilism -Everything is possibly not true, does not even exist, I dont care.
 * Agnosticism -Some thing may be other than they seem, it is impossible to know, so irrelevant for discussion.
 * Uncertainty -Some thing are true, I cant be "sure" which ones.
 * Probability -Some thing are true, I have a function to declare relative truth by relatively negating others.
 * Estimation -Some things are true, I can approximate the way these things look like, without "knowing" them directly.
 * Belief -I have no proof, yet I tend to think some are truth.
 * Justified true belief -I believe my truth to be so, and They are indeed so. [REMOVED: THERE IS NO SUCH REFERENCE ON THE PAGE POINTED TO] -- PiPhD 07:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainty -There are truths, I know them.
 * Determinism -Truths are all there is, the world is ruled by dogmatism alone, there are no issues at which relative truths are relevant.

*Doubt -''this is the essence of negating certainty, not a level of it's it. Inclusion of this in the list is a category mistake. like putting in a list of fish species the word "Fish"'' -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah I didn't realize the link to justified true belief was actually the epistimology page. Thanks for the explanation of each term. I kind of see a relationship between these; but is there a way to define what it needs to be? I wouldn't say levels of certainty. The certainty page sure doesn't explain it. I guess they all seem like conclusions. They all involve concluding something as truth or as end of discussion. There's probably more to it. So are these arranged in a specific order or should they be alphabetical? --Tsinoyboi 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a Certainty series specifically for this box?

Oh ya, and do you think these cancel each other out? or can some like agnosticism and theism fit together? I guess belief and certainty could fit together. I've been trying to get a discussion on Agnostic theism going and even been working on my own version, User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic theism, but I won't edit the main page until it's clear that what i wrote fits the policies. --Tsinoyboi 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

why is there so much vandalism on this page now and no one just trying to explain why they don't like this box? --Tsinoyboi 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

From deleted page Talk:Certainty series
I think this box needs an explanation page Here's a rough example

i copied this from Procrastinating@ talk2me

Legends, trying to be as quintessential as possible

 * Nihilism -Everything is possibly not true, does not even exist, I dont care.
 * Agnosticism -some thing may be other than they seem, it is impossible to know, so irelvant for discussion.
 * Uncertainty -Some thing are true, I cant be "sure" which ones.
 * Probability -Some thing are true, I have a function to decleare relative truth by relativly negating others.
 * Estimation -Some things are true, I can approximate the way these things look like, without "knwoing" them directly.
 * Belief -I have no proof, yet I tend to think some are truth.
 * Justified true belief -I belive my truth to be so, and They are indeed so. [REMOVED: THERE IS NO SUCH REFERENCE ON THE PAGE POINTED TO] -- PiPhD 07:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainty -There are truths, I know them.
 * Determinism -Truths are all there is, the world is ruled by dogmatism alone, there are no issues at which relative truths are relevant.

should it be put as the main page? --Tsinoyboi 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So anyone wanna discuss this? how about the certainty series box?

Legends, revised

 * Nihilism holds that there is no inherent meaning, value, truth or purpose to the world.
 * Agnosticism holds that the truth is either not known or inherently unknowable.
 * Uncertainty is the state of being in doubt.
 * Probability is a function used to assign odds to that which is unknown by way of what is known.
 * Estimation Deals with inexact representation.
 * Belief is the state of holding what is not certain to be true.
 * Justified true belief is what is both believed and true. [REMOVED: THERE IS NO SUCH REFERENCE ON THE PAGE POINTED TO] -- PiPhD 07:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainty is the state of being without doubt.
 * Determinism holds that all occurances are causally determined by unbroken chains of previous occurances.

Feel free to suggest further revisions. -FrostyBytes 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll change it now. Still open to discussion and further revisions, though. The only question now is how are they related and what makes this a series? Hmm needs an outside source. --Tsinoyboi 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this series should be named the epistemology series, since that is the subject of the study of certainty, knowledge, etc? -FrostyBytes 10:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that sounds better. Supposedly it looked to me like it was was supposed to be several conclusions of of world views. However, that's probably a better title. I'm not at disagreement to make that change. --Tsinoyboi 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

TFD
I spoke to my Philosophy prof about the "certainty series" and he had never heard of it. Furthermore, browsing the internet, i've found absolutely no justification for a certainty series. If this is original research, it has no place in wikipedia. Otherwise, there need to be citations for where this information was found. Archtemplar 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can find a prof' to not know things about most articles in here. If it's not a main stream lingo, it is still useful in categorizing articles in wikipedia, as "Philosophy navigational boxes" not a philosophical paradigm. Most of the categories here have no professor to assign authority to them, they are a tool, not a profession of academic consensus. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am distrustful of this grouping of things. I just looked at it and literally laughed out loud. Philosophical epistemology (viz Skepticism, Nihilism) has little to do with the mathematics of dealing with uncertainty. I understand that the explanation of some interpretations of exactly what uncertainty/probability mean could be interpreted as being "philosophical," but I certainly do not think a discussion of Skepticism concerning knowledge or the nature of Justified True Belief, for example, should be so explicitly categorized the same as, say, probability. I dunno. Just my two cents. --ILikeThings 22:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This box does not add value to any of the pages it appears on, and the descriptions for the series entries seem very ad hoc. I've wanted to see it deleted since I first laid eyes on it months ago. There is no external reasoning that justifies the existence of this box. It does not enhance a person's categorical understanding of the involved topics. The grouping is not based on an established discipline of philosophy, and contains no citations to establish itself as such. I don't know how but can't someone nominate this for deletion? 72.34.65.114 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you find this box unfitting to a certain article, feel free to suggest it's removal from that specific article, as for the ordering of things, there is an open invitation for discussion by two individuals here, an invitation that has not been challenged by anyone in 8 months. (beside direct spamming)-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cartesian Doubt
I added Cartesian Doubt to the list. This seems suitable. RedBaron5142 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not. doubting everything is part of Uncertainty, not of Certainty. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Probability
I am uncertain as to why Probability is included on this list. Everything else seems to be a philosophical topic, so the one mathematical topic seems like the odd one out. It doesn't seem very useful on the probability page. Quantumelfmage (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Colors
Just for the record, this template is unreadable to persons with vision difficulties. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear me...a black template :) Haven't seen such before. I suggest that it be changed into the only other neutral colour - white - before its creator and collaborators can agree on another. This is simply not functional, and people with normal eyesight cannot see anything on it either. And lastly, I don't know why uncertainty has to be associated with blackness/darkness in academic reference literature (i.e. Wikipedia). I thought that is a concept encountered in popular culture, folklore and the like. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth
since certainty, and many of the others in the series, deal with truth, i decided to add Truth to the template. Any objections / comments about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenfreak (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheism?
Why is atheism not a part of this list? Just wondering. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Antinomianism
should Antinomianism be added somewhere? 68.100.172.139 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion
I'm thinking about deleting this sidebar for the following reasons:
 * The items on the sidebar don't cohere to any actual group in philosophy.
 * "Certainty" is not a topic of special interest in quite the way the sidebar's listed topics suggest.
 * Independent of any of the above reasons, the sidebar isn't particularly useful.
 * There is a proliferation of categories falling into irrelevance and/or disuse. The Philosophy Project could benefit from trimming the fat.
 * Other, more relevant and helpful sidebars can take it place down the road.

BabyJonas (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree. Since this post is a few years old at this point, I'm starting a new section below in hopes of getting some consensus in favor of deletion. --Drevolt (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm still in agreement. —Approaching (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Going off of concerns raised by Approaching in a post from three years ago, I'd like to voice my agreement that this template could be deleted without doing any real harm. It's a fairly loose grouping that doesn't reflect any Wikipedia-independent study of the subject, and seems to have just clung on over the years without being particularly useful. I do think that introducing a comparable sidebar that would include maybe half of these pages would be a good idea. I'd personally be inclined to introduce a sidebar on topics in Epistemology, since that's a much more natural way to group some of these pages, but I'm open to other suggestions as well. Any thoughts? --Drevolt (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Replacing this with an epistemology sidebar could be an improvement. Teishin (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on the feedback so far, I've created Template:Epistemology sidebar and started working on it, replacing the certainty sidebar on various pages where the epistemology sidebar is more appropriate. Since I get the feeling that there's consensus for deletion, I'm going to move ahead with it. Further input from anyone who thinks that the template is worth preserving is still welcome, of course. --Drevolt (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)