The assertion is true, without being able to actually check our work it's impossible to know if we are right. It is uncertain in the literal sense, we don't , and cannot at this time, know for sure.
The work is checked. You are insisting on that only one specific way of checking is valid.
Yes, my point is that without going out and checking, it is impossible to know if we are right or if we are just consistently wrong. I understand you're having difficulty with the concept as your mind appears to rebel against uncertainty. There are many things we can't know for sure as we lack the ability to really check. I accept that in many cases we've managed to develop approximations that are close enough to work with, but saying you know for sure is religion, not science.
Yes, my point is that without going out and checking, it is impossible to know if we are right or if we are just consistently wrong. I understand you're having difficulty with the concept as your mind appears to rebel against uncertainty. There are many things we can't know for sure as we lack the ability to really check. I accept that in many cases we've managed to develop approximations that are close enough to work with, but saying you know for sure is religion, not science.
We can really check, but you don't agree that it's "really" checking.
To the degree that there's uncertainty, that's true of everything. If you use a tape measure it could be inaccurate. Did you really check that it wasn't? What'd you check it against? That's not to say that the potential error is of consequence. Likewise in this case.
(post is archived)