A murder occurred, so the police came to the house where the crime took place, and as soon as they entered, they found a person whose clothes were stained with blood and carrying a knife in his hand. When they began the investigation, they discovered that this person had disagreements with the victim.
No rational person will doubt that these three pieces of evidence: the blood-stained clothes, his possession of the knife, and the disagreements with the victim, represent clear evidence that this person is the killer.
But let us think a little. Is there a possibility, even 1%, that this accused is innocent? Is it logically impossible that the real killer epilepticized this accused and then killed his victim and stained the accused’s clothes with blood to make it appear as if he was the killer, and that his holding of the knife was accidental, as if he only wanted to inspect it at the moment the police entered, and that his differences with the victim were not enough to push him? to commit the crime.
All of this is possible, there is no impossibility in it, but nevertheless The judge will never consider these possibilities and will rule that the evidence is valid and that it is sufficient to prove the crime against the accused.
Can this show that people’s actions in this world are based on suspicion/assumption, not certainty? Rather, there is no hope of achieving certainty in most of the events of the world, and that is okay.
The pride in acting on the information of a single person, since it indicates suspicion, not certainty.
Is certainty an Impossibility that we can't achieve rather we base our perception of reality based on our suspicion and assumptions?