Is everything not an assumption?

Question

I've been thinking about this alot lately, and i can't find anyway to disprove this. Everything is an assumption, we know nothing.

Answer 1

the reason is because the human mind is not able to conceive "everything"

read Nietzsche

(although the logical fallacy with N was that he said the only truth is that there is no truth, but if you say that, then what you are saying cannot be true either)

Answer 2

yes everything is an assumption or based upon assumptions ( using logic that is based on assumptions )

you might be able to explain the same world with different assumptions.

Answer 3

The universe has only itself as a frame of reference. All reality and knowledge is therefore ultimately self-referential.

Your question has been asked lots of times before, and it's something I've actually thought about rather extensively.

Everything is not an assumption, but the basis of all knowledge could be assumption. What do we not assume?

Language, which communicates ideas, is not an assumption: it's an agreement. We arbitrarily decided that a word had a meaning, and so in that case it's not an assumption. Knowledge of the other agreements for the methods that others use to speak (e.g., learning another language) allows us to connect other concepts together.

Assumptions are necessary as a starting point for all knowledge. We then proceed to either prove or disprove the assumption with evidence. If the evidence that's presented can't be rejected (for whatever reason, typically on grounds of either logic or common perception), then the proof is considered incontrovertible (no controversy can be made of it). It is therefore accepted as a theory until someone independently reviews the data and verifies that it is factual, and can reduplicate the evidence.

Thus, gravity is a theory, because it's never been proved to exist. However, we can experience its effects, and we can see these effects. It is accepted as a theory until we understand what actually makes it work.

Paranormal phenomena, on the other hand, are often rejected in spite of evidence presented, on the grounds that ghosts, UFO's, psychic gifts, etc., are superstition and therefore any evidence presented is obviously fake (usually without ever examining the evidence). In this case, the assumption that something is not real cannot be validated, and so the paranormal cannot even obtain acceptance as theory because facts are rejected based on assumptions about authenticity.

Knowledge is therefore based on assumptions about what is true or false, and largely irrational preconceptions that we are taught to believe (or which we reject outright). It is best to suspend judgment where you do not find it credible.

Your question is a natural predecessor to "cogito, ergo sum" which questions the very nature of existence. How do we know that we exist? "I think; therefore, I am." This is an assumption that our perceptions and thoughts are proof of existence, and not simply written into the equation. It is not, however, logical to assume the inverse: "I cannot exist because I cannot perceive myself."

Evidence becomes proof when others believe it's so. If the Pope says it's so to the Catholics, then that's proof. If science says it's not so to the Catholics, that's evidence. (This assumes that they trust the Pope as a credible source of information.) Evidence becomes proof when it's believed. Therefore, proof is an assumption of credibility.

Answer 4

Perhaps this is so, but even if it is, I will assume my role as "effective" assumption.

Answer 5

Everything we know has to be considered on some level of malleable opinion.  Therefore, I know that I can never know that there is no afterlife, but I know that there is no afterlife. Get it?

We have to do something to separate the plausible from the implausible.