Because our senses deceive us, there is very little knowledge we can claim to have certainty about.

In this essay, I will first show that our senses can deceive us and thus, much of what we claim to know cannot be absolutely certain. Next, I will show that we may be able to derive absolutely certain knowledge, but such knowledge either remains doubtful, or is limited in extent. As such, I will agree with the question if certainty is read as absolute certainty. Nevertheless, I will disagree with the question if certainty does not refer to absolute certainty. Prima facie, it would seem that knowledge from the senses is absolutely certain. However, on closer inspection, it seems that our senses can deceive us under bad visual conditions. For example, under bad weather conditions, a lamppost may look like a tree from afar. Hence, knowledge derived from our senses under bad conditions can be false and cannot be regarded as certain. Fortunately, under good conditions, take for example, in close proximity and under good lighting, the lamppost would be clear in vision. Hence, knowledge under good visual conditions may still be certain. On the contrary, we may be deceived by our senses even under good conditions. Such sense deception can present itself in a dream. We may think we know something to be true having witnessed it, but if it is part of a dream, then it makes no reference to reality and ceases to be knowledge in actuality. For example, I see my hand in the air as I lie on my bed in a dream, but in reality, my hands are firmly rested on the bed. Such a claim makes no reference to the real world and cannot be knowledge. Moreover, sensory input in a dream can be as vivid as it is in reality and thus we cannot be sure if what we are currently experiencing is within a dream or not. If we are dreaming then we cannot be sure if anything appearing around us is real. Consequently, we cannot be absolutely certain about the knowledge of our sensory experience. As a result of sense deception, it seems that we cannot be absolutely certain of knowledge derived from our senses. Nevertheless, we can derive knowledge that is absolutely certain through reason. Through reasoning, we can derive transcendental arguments and clear and distinct ideas which are indubitable. Firstly, transcendental arguments establish their conclusion by showing that it is presupposed by some claim that has to be supposed to be true. One example would be the Cogito, I think therefore I am. The act of doubting presupposes the existence of the doubter. For if he/she did not exist, then he/she cannot be doubting. Secondly, clear and distinct ideas can be logically deduced as unchanging and eternal. Once one sees the truth, one realizes it cannot be otherwise. Examples of clear and distinct ideas are present in geometry. The area of a triangle formed with three points of a square is always half of that square. This rule applies to all squares and our faculty of reason tells us this is so. Consequently, we can have knowledge that is absolutely certain even though our senses deceive us. Unfortunately, skeptics may argue that evil demons may exist to deceive us into thinking that clear and distinct ideas are true. This is possible because only when we employ our faculty of reason to understand these laws do we know without a doubt that they are true. But as our mind shifts away from our logical proof, we may be deceived (by a thought implanted in to our minds) that these laws are true. Consequently, it seems that we may not even be able to have absolutely certain knowledge of the aforementioned ideas.

Moreover, knowledge derived from reason is limited because it cannot tell us about the real world. I will use Humes Fork to explain why this is the case. Hume proposed that all propositions are either matters of fact or relations of ideas. Relations of ideas are analytic truths, like all bachelors are male, which can be arrived at just by understanding the definitions of all the terms involved. Relation of ideas result in a contradiction when the predicate is negated. In contrast, matters of fact are synthetic truths, truths like all objects with mass tend to fall towards the ground which happen to be the case but might not be the case. Nowhere in the definition of the subject indicates that all objects with mass fall to the ground. A negation of the predicate does not result in a contradiction. It may be that an object is in space, where it does not fall to the ground. Reason alone can only arrive at analytic truths because synthetic truths can be negated without contradiction and is thus our of reach of reason alone. Human knowledge consists of analytic and synthetic truths. Propositions about our world need to be empirically verified and is out of reach of reason alone. For example, whether the bachelor wears an orange shirt or not, needs to be verified by our empirical evidence. A claim about something that is the case in reality needs to be corresponded to reality. As such, knowledge based on reasoning alone is limited. All in all, it seems that because our senses deceive us and reason is limited, there is very little knowledge that we can claim to have absolute certainty about. Nevertheless, there are different shades of certainty and if we do not take certainty to mean absolute certainty, much more of our knowledge claims could be regarded as certain. Certainty is the product of justification and because most of our knowledge claims are justified, albeit to differing extents, we can claim to have certainty about them. Our knowledge can be justified to a certain degree of certainty through coherentism. Coherentism seeks to justify knowledge by checking the coherence of a knowledge claim to a pre-existing set of beliefs. Coherentists concede that their knowledge is not free from doubt as it is a self justifying belief system. Nonetheless, Coherentists achieve a certain degree of certainty by checking a knowledge claim for supporting beliefs and non contradiction. For example, the claim that large fire-breathing dragons living in wardrobes contradicts by beliefs of all the wardrobes I have encountered. The claim that large firebreathing dragons on a moon in the Milky Way does not actively contradict by beliefs, but it does not cohere well either since I have no beliefs to support that claim. Hence it is unlikely that I could accept either claim based on coherentism. Thus, coherentism provides justification for beliefs, albeit without complete certainty, to ascertain knowledge. However, such knowledge cannot be objective as it coherentism is a self justifying belief system. In conclusion, I agree the because our senses deceive us, there is very little knowledge we can have absolute certainty about, but if absolute certainty were not a criteria, then we would be able to accept most of our knowledge of the world as certain.