"We do not need and cannot afford the catastrophes born out of a belief in certainty."

Are you sure?

Thank God! We elected The Decider! Twice!

It's been decades since I've been certain about anything.

For an interesting fictional character study of someone who fears doubt in his life - at least outwardly - I would suggest the fascinating novel The Conformist by Alberto Moravia (also made into a fine film by Bertolucci), about Marcello Clerici, who lives an unoriginal life according to the dictates of his repressive surroundings. He becomes a fanatical Fascist in Mussolini's Italy. He doesn't even realise how deeply that Fascist state of mind penetrates into his soul, which leads to some tragic consequences.

Yes, feeling doubt is uncomfortable, and thus we have religion (opiate of the masses, as someone once said), and the extreme expressions of belief in the certainty of something or someone as the True and the Best - be it a creed, or a person placed on a pedestal who we think will do everything right, no matter how impossible it seems, and without needing much effort on our part, with little rationality going into the adoption of such thinking. Also explains why people become very, very upset when their basic beliefs are questioned rationally by others - seems that the very reason for their own existence feels threatened when this happens.

Personally, I tend to use the word 'believe' than 'know' when presenting opinions, and also realise that doing this sounds like a weaker argument to many. Which probably explains why a lot of people insist on the certainty of their knowledge (witness the current wars in the election primaries). But I also know (ahem, believe?) that no one on this good earth is infallible. Not even the Pope!

either "Let a thousand superstitions grow." or "Liberals destroy Conservatives."

I believe it is a toss-up as to what would happen if the ideas expounded upon here were to become widely adopted in today's educational environment.

I am certain that liberals are more comfortable with this topic than are conservatives.

Well, i am very impressed and happy. Pleasured by the certainty that a couple weeks ago i wrote someone promoting the value of uncertainty. I suppose, or wonder, if the neurobiologic use of certainty isn't similar and counterbalancing to the survival use of fear. Perhaps that was stated or implied. I think I'm too dense to be certain.

Is this article supposed to be serious or is it a joke? Maybe I read it too fast. I hope the guy's not serious.

Too bad if uncertainty is uncomfortable! We really can't know much for sure. It's the foolish, selfish people who insist on having answers even if the answers are wrong who cause most of the cruelty and violence in this world.

Imagine what would have happened if more Germans had questioned Hitler? Or if more people had questioned Bush?

Not wanting to deal with uncertainty is a typical conservative trait. Well, life is uncertain. If you can't deal with uncertainty, you can't deal with life!

Loved your Anatomy of Melancholy, Doc. I hope this one is as gripping a read (if perhaps more stringently edited).

Right now, America is a nation known for its huge deficits, its housing crisis, its religious crisis, its moral crisis (EG: Engaging in torture) and its political crisis.

During such times certainty, is a survival trait. It is a time in which people need to get things done.

So on the deficits: You have people who are certain that what is needed is reduced government spending. Never mind the crumbling infrostructure.

On the other end you have people who are certain that what is needed is higher taxes.

The housing crisis, you have people who think that lower taxes will help.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have got people who want higher minimum wages.

On the religious crisis, you have the one camp who is certain that America's crisis of faith should be solved by giving in to it and turning America into a theocracy.

On the other side, you have people who are certain that America's traditional secular view of government and religion (That they two should not mix) should rule supreme.

On the moral crisis you have people who want to stop popular entertainment and gays getting married.

On the other side, you have people who think that government has no place in people's private lives, and that the real moral crisis is in America's government, which represents all Americans, and for which all American are responsible, is ignoring America's mandated moral core - the US constitution.

On the political crisis you have a situation where the press is no longer trusted to inform the public about the candidates.

You have a situation where neither side of any of the other crisis debates feels certain of the information they are being given by the press and thus both end up using personal experience to inform their choices.

This is a political crisis because what politics boils down to is a choice between the candidates and the less information people have that they can trust, the less qualified they are to make that choice.

People respond to this lack of information by "Certainty." By arguing as hard as they can for their position they hope to either have someone get provoked into providing them with more information, and possibly changing their mind's and averting disaster, or getting their point of view validated.

Sadly, in this day and age, such an instinct is wasted as communities favouring one view over the other are sizeable enough to ensure that whatever statement one puts out, one ends up preaching to the choir.

I can't help but think that if this article had been emailed to Bush & his fellow chickenhawks 8 years ago (and assuming we had someone on hand to force him to read it ... "Pay attention Georgie!! There will be a test later!" "Awww..."), the world would be in a lot better shape today...

There's a site called Speak Your Branes that collects the more moronic things people say on news sites. One entry this week was a guy who posted *three times* that he didn't care about the Oscars. And such a man is a fool ... but not for apathy towards the Oscars. Most people are apathetic about the Oscars. It's perfectly sensible to be apathetic about the Oscars.

And that's the problem here - the reliance on news channels and sites on the letters column. Politicians love the idea of an 'engaged' electorate, by which they mean they love the idea millions of people agree with them. Editors love whipping up a bit of controversy, it gets the readers and viewers in. Of *course* the people who write in have an opinion. Of *course* it's often partial and arrogantly asserted and simplistic and polarized. And, yes, gosh I appreciate the irony that I'm saying this as one of those letter writers. I'm not fooling myself I'm 'representative', though. I'm weird. You're weird reading this.

The trick is never to mistake the internet for reality or democracy. Snakes on a Plane wasn't the biggest film of last year; Ron Paul is not going to win by a landslide; Matt Drudge and Harry Knowles are not 'powerful'.

As for the broader point:

There are limits to knowledge. But that doesn't mean we can't say we 'know' things. It doesn't mean we should lump science in with faith. Scientists are, by definition, people who question the limits of their knowledge. It's the old Dawkins line - a tribesman can hold as one of his most sacred beliefs that the Moon is a the gourd of the gods, but scientists *know* it's a large spherical rock about a quarter of a million miles away, because they built a big rocket and went there. And by doing that, some things they learned changed their mind, others confirmed theories.

There *is* a difference between the tribesman and the scientist, and it *can* be fairly characterized as 'the tribesman believes this because his religion demands him to; the scientist believes it because of the evidence'. It can be fairly characterized as 'the tribesman doesn't question and has no way of testing this belief; the scientist understands that his position is to the best of his knowledge'. And it's fair to characterize it as 'the tribesman is wrong; the scientist is right'.