Londoner wrote:I do not know of any, (things we know for certain)
Seriously? So all the things we've done in science was just luck, non repeatable?
The phrase 'things we've done' is a bit vague. Science provides a coherent description of the world but it can do so only because it leaves some things out. It deals in generalisations, so the language it uses is ultimately tautological.
As an illustration, you use the words 'non repeatable'. But of course, nothing is literally repeatable; every event is unique. You can only say it is repeatable if your description of that event is selective, if you describe only certain aspects of that event.
I didn't really mean to get into the usual argument around forms of skepticism. My point is more that if we more away from the methods of science and start dealing with the subjective, the personal, then few people can claim certainty - and if they do, then they convince nobody. If that is the case, what are we arguing about? Or, why do we feel an urge to argue?
Me: Nobody can point to some fact that dictates how we should live our lives, yet we cannot duck that question. We have to choose something.
I agree, but people seem to believe that one requires religion in order to lead a good life, where one respects others traveling in a different lane. That's not true. All one has to do is recognize the absolute truth in why we differ, understanding that it's currently beyond our control, that it's determined, as this planet, and thus all it's inhabitants, are a metamorphosis! Such that the only rule required, is my version of the golden rule, as it accounts for all things, as well as it can be done.
I may or may not agree with your view, I'm not sure, but I do not imagine I can produce a scientific fact or piece of logic, such that I could say; Now you must accept that you are wrong and I am right! I cannot think what sort of evidence I would be looking for, let alone find it.
Me: I would say that philosophy encourages us to question 'the truth'.
I disagree, I would say that it should encourage us to question that which is posed as 'the truth,' not that we should continue to question that which has been found to in fact be 'the truth.' There's just not enough time to continually question everything. As it is, we're very young and don't know, or won't acknowledge, many truths, upon which, our very lives depend. And in most cases it's usually because of the want of a glittering prize. So I agree that these things must be questioned, so as to break down the walls of lies due to money. Let's no longer slowly kill people, in the name of free enterprise.
Personally, I do not find it difficult to live with the notion that there are no clear truths - and philosophically, although we have not discovered any certainties we have discovered that currently we do not have these certainties. That is an accurate description of how things are; it doesn't prove a negative, that no certainties are possible, but we can know we don't have them.
I think the trouble with putting aside philosophical doubts and simply working on the assumption that we have 'a truth' is that we can't help building on it. So (crudely) if one was to put one's faith in science (say), then necessarily we can't help considering non-scientific knowledge (like our subjective experiences) as somehow second-class.
To put that another way, if one is an agnostic, then I don't see that as just meaning '
I don't know', which has no consequences. I think to say '
we don't know' is to make a positive claim, which does have consequences. For example, if 'we don't know' then I might dispute another person's claim to certainty, but I should not go beyond that and claim I know that their beliefs are
wrong. 
