Mr Kite wrote:gitgeezer wrote:In an earlier post I suggested that "there is no absolute answer" and quoted Max Born's statement that "ideas such as absolute certitude, absolute exactness, final truth, etc. are figments of the imagination which should not be admissible in any field of science." But notice that Born is using the adjectives, "absolute" and "final." This leaves room for certitudes that are not "absolute" and truths that are not "final." Science needs certitude and truth that, though admittedly not absolute and final, is necessary to produce the foundation and confidence to move forward.
I don't think you can have a certitude that is not absolute, but that is only a linguistic point. I suppose you can dilute the notion of truth in this way if you like, but then you are not talking about the kind of truth that the OP was asking about ("how do we *really know* that we can trust..."). Diluting it, though, is a way of saying that science is not about truth, as astro64 has also said. This was my objection to your post of yesterday.
It was this sort of "diluted" truth that produced the computer you are now using. As for the OP's "how do we really know that we can trust?," we can know and trust by observing whether constant and repetitive testing produces the same answer every time. This computer, barring breakage or outside influences, gives me the same results every time I turn it on. I really know that and can trust it, and that's why I continue to use it.