“a. Does probability *border on* certainty?
b. If this were the case: would, from a logical perspective, vice versa, not also certainty have to border on probability? (!)”

The fact that this question can also be applied to AAA-bonds makes this a very Reuter-ish issue. Maybe the traders who subscribe to our financial services needed a bit more training in philosophy rather than economic engineering.:-)

BTW, the link to the amusing Studpedia entry doesn’t work. Here’s the URL at http://bit.ly/cvhAEo.

a. Does probability *border on* certainty?
b. If this were the case: would, from a logical perspective, vice versa, not also certainty have to border on probability? (!)
c. Is the whole phrase of a (so called) “probability bordering on (!) certainty” a serious and scientific one?

What about works, in this field, who cast (serious, scientific) doubt on whether probability borders on certainty?

Furthermore: it does not have to be forgotten that this (exact: these two (!)) sentences (“Es gibt …/Es gibt mit an Sicherheit grenzender …”) are two *statements*
(in the sense of “Behauptungen”)…

Generally speaking: Everyone can state everything.
But how are such sentences to be falsified? What is the way of doing so?

Again: To make statements and position them in public:
that is one aspect of the actual campaign: scientific???

And:

d. what about the works of e.g. Dubben/Beck-Bornholdt (Title: “Mit an Wahrscheinlichkeit grenzender Sicherheit: Logisches Denken und Zufall”, literal translation: “With a probability (!) bordering on certainty: logical thinking and coincidence”), a booktitle, which already – ironically – underlines the pseudo-scientific (verbal, flowering phrase-”supported”) ‘formula’ (precise: hollow phrase) of a (so called, erroneously) ‘probability bordering on certainty’?

e. Furthermore: what about several (!) works of e.g. Georg Schilling (one title e.g.: “Die so genannte ‘an Sicherheit grenzende Wahrscheinlichkeit”; or “Die “Triple A”-Ratingsymbole und die “an Sicherheit grenzende Wahrscheinlichkeit”?, Grin publishers, 2009) which cast (serious, fact-bound, down-to earth) doubt on what is – even in the field of so called ‘AAA’-rated bonds – referred to as a (so called) ‘probability bordering on certainty’? What about these scientific texts?

f. … Let alone the fact, that one – from a serious, not pseudo-scientific point of view might, e.g. with respect to e.g. Stupedidia (see the entry “an Sicherheit grenzende Wahrscheinlichkeit”: http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/An_Siche rheit_grenzende_Wahrscheinlichkeit) might as: where is the (implied, supposed) *extreme value* (limit value) of that empty phrase ???

“There is (almost certainly) no God.” It’s interesting that they add that qualifier, which literally translates as “with a probability bordering on certainty.”

that

Could it be they’re not that convinced after all?

The “probably” is crucial to distinguish a methodology based on reason, science, skepticism and open inquiry from one closed down by faith and dogma. That is why we chose to use the word in our Canadian campaign.

Atheists (and most everyone else) can be convinced that something is true, without claiming that there is no possibility that we are wrong.

But for a believer to be honest about the certainty of their “knowledge” would often make them feel like they are doing something wrong. Why do you think that is? Group pressure to keep the faith? Why can’t believers be honest with us, with themselves, with children?