Denying that 100% confidence is ever rational seems to be equivalent to denying that logic ever applies to anything.
It’s just saying that logic is a model that can’t describe anything in the real world fully literally. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful. Abstracting away irrelevant details is bread and butter reductionism.
Yes I agree, there is only a rough isomorphism between the mathematics of binary logic and the real world; binary logic seems to describe a limit that reality approaches but never reaches.
We should consider that the mathematics of binary logic are the limiting case of probability theory; it is probability theory where the probabilities may only take the values of 0 or 1. Probability theory can do everything that logic can but it can also handle those real world cases where the probability of knowing something is something other than 0 or 1, as is the usual case with scientific knowledge.
It’s just saying that logic is a model that can’t describe anything in the real world fully literally. That doesn’t mean it’s not useful. Abstracting away irrelevant details is bread and butter reductionism.
Yes I agree, there is only a rough isomorphism between the mathematics of binary logic and the real world; binary logic seems to describe a limit that reality approaches but never reaches.
We should consider that the mathematics of binary logic are the limiting case of probability theory; it is probability theory where the probabilities may only take the values of 0 or 1. Probability theory can do everything that logic can but it can also handle those real world cases where the probability of knowing something is something other than 0 or 1, as is the usual case with scientific knowledge.
Yeah, I came across that idea in the Jaynes book, and was very impressed.