Can we be 100% certain of any facts?

Question

Are any beliefs undubitable?

Answer 1

Depends on your nature. If your a hard-core skeptic/cynic, you will be 100% sure only of the fact that nothing can be 100% sure.

But most of us are 100% sure about some facts, at least - e.g. that we will die.

But your second part doesn't deal with facts; it mentions beliefs, which are very different.
Beliefs aren't facts - they're opinions. And we can be only subjectively sure about those.

Alas, even cogito ergo sum is suspect:

"The cogito argument is so called because of its Latin formulation in the Discourse on Method: "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"). This is possibly the most famous single line in all of philosophy, and is generally considered the starting point for modern Western philosophy. In it, the Meditator finds his first grip on certainty after the radical skepticism he posited in the First Meditation. The cogito presents a picture of the world and of knowledge in which the mind is something that can know itself better than it can know anything else. The idea that we know our mind first and foremost has had a hypnotic hold on Western philosophy ever since, and how the mind can connect with reality has ever since been a major concern. In this conception, the mind ceases to be something that helps us know about the world and becomes something inside which we are locked.
We should note, however, the distinction between the "I think, therefore I am" as stated in the Discourse on Method and the formulation we get in the Meditations: "So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." Neither "therefore" nor "I think" appear in the Meditations. The absence of "therefore" is important, since it dissuades us from reading the cogito as a syllogism, that is, as a three-step argument as follows:
(1) Whatever thinks exists
(2) I think
(3) Therefore I exist

The trouble with a syllogistic reading, which Descartes explicitly denies elsewhere in his writings, is that no reason is given why (1) should be immune from the doubt that the Meditator has posited. Also, the syllogistic reading interprets the cogito as a reasoned inference at a point in the Meditator's doubt when even reasoned inferences can be called into doubt.
But if everything is to be doubted, how can the Meditator know the cogito? A number of readings have been given to understand this step. One is to read it as an intuition rather than an inference, as something that comes all at once, in a flash. Another reading interprets the cogito as a performative utterance, where the utterance itself is what confirms its truth. That is, I could not say "I exist" if I did not exist or if I did not think, and so the act of saying it is what makes it true. Thus, I can only affirm my own existence (not anybody else's) and I can only do so in the present tense: I cannot say "I thought, therefore I was/am."
It should be noted that the cogito only works for thought. I cannot say, "I walk, therefore I am," since I can doubt I am walking. The reason I cannot doubt that I am thinking is that doubt itself is a form of thought.
After the cogito, the Meditator advances the claim that he is a thing that thinks, an argument called the sum res cogitans, after its Latin formulation. There are three controversies regarding the claim "I am...in the strict sense only a thing that thinks," which we will examine in turn: whether the claim is metaphysical or epistemological, what is meant by "thing," and what is meant by "thinking."
It is more plausible to read the sum res cogitans as an epistemological remark, saying that, "whatever else I may be, I know only that I am a thing that thinks." However, in some of his writings, Descartes makes it plausible to read him as making a metaphysical remark, that "I am only a thing that thinks." His reasoning might go something like this: "I know that I am a thinking thing, and I do not know whether I am a bodily thing. My body and my mind cannot be one and the same, because I should either know both of them or know neither of them. Since I know I am a thinking thing, and know that my body and my mind are two separate things, I can conclude that I am not a bodily thing. Therefore, I am only a thing that thinks." In so arguing, however, Descartes would commit the so-called "intentional fallacy" of basing an argument on what one does not know. If two things had to be either both known or both not known in order to be identical, we could argue that Bruce Wayne and Batman are not one and the same as well.
"Thing that thinks" also carries some ambiguous baggage. By "thing," Descartes could simply be using the word as we do today, as an ambiguous throwaway word when we don't want to be more specific. More likely, though, he is using it to mean substance, the fundamental and indivisible elements of Cartesian ontology. In this ontology, there are extended things (bodies) and thinking things (minds), and Descartes is here asserting that we are minds rather than bodies. Of course, "thinking" is also highly questionable. Does Descartes mean only the intellection and understanding that is characteristic of the Aristotelian conception of mind? Or does he also include sensory perception, imagination, willing, and so on? At the beginning of the Second Meditation, the Meditator has cast sensory perception and so on into doubt, but by the end of the Second Meditation, sensing, imagining, willing, and so on are included as attributes of the mind."

Answer 2

Hello: Ben Franklin's definition of madness was once to do the equal factor 2 specific instances and to anticipate specific outcome (the hearth is not going to burn me this time!). The thinker David Hume took Empiricism (you'll be able to simplest recognise what you have got skilled) to its severe and stated you are not able to recognise (for instance) that a brick breaks a window given that you are not able to see intent. You can do it one thousand instances and get the equal outcome, however given that you are not able to see the detail of intent that are not able to recognise for certain...this appears like your factor. Science is headquartered find the great reply we will after which checking out the outcome. As lengthy because the outcome is sensible and is duplicated at any time when we will be certain...most of the time. If the thought is shaky then it's much more likely that a greater reply should be determined. for instance: The Earth was once as soon as the middle of the universe (Pythagoras proved that the solar was once earlier than Christ, however thats no longer primary) and men and women tracked the trails of planets and different heavenly our bodies...however their orbits had been unusual and so they every wanted one other further equations to provide an explanation for their variables of their orbits (intent given that the earth isn't the solar of our universe). Naturally we ultimately got here to the present thought and pretty much the quantity now determine at all times. Except while they do not, so we are running on a greater reply. So to reply your query: Can we be quite thoroughly top notch duper certain that each person goes to die or be burnt by way of the hearth from now till the tip of men and women? No, it's feasible that we ultimately discover a approach to cheat demise or by some means preserve ourselves from being burnt by way of the hearth, however I would not anticipate it. Its well to impeach (close to) each and every thought every now and then, however to be able to competently stroll by way of existence...after mirrored image time is over to do stroll with walk in the park. I wish that this is helping. Rev Phil

Answer 3

Yes there is only one. Many ancient greek philosophers referred to this.
The only true certainty is that nothing is certain.

Answer 4

Descartes thinks we can be certain of only one thing:

cogito ergo sum.

Answer 5

hey poindexter
light a match and put your finger into the flame.....

100% pain

you can be certain of that fact .....