But, how should I decide whether to trust my senses, and my brain? Whether they are trust-worthy?

Yes, good question. How should you decide? On the basis of your past experience, right? You trusted them in the past, and they seem to be trustworthy. If you trust them, you tend to learn things, and you call it knowledge. If you don't trust them, you tend to doubt things, and you don't call it knowledge.

I think what you are trying to emphasize is a category of knowing that is regulated by what we might call discrimination or analytical thinking. You don't always trust your senses and your reason. You have learned over the years to discriminate between trustworthy and untrustworthy sense perception, trustworthy and untrustworthy reasoning.

Is that the issue? That if we bring analytical reasoning into the process, you would argue that the subsequent knowledge is fundamentally a product of analytical thinking, and thus it is not fundamentally a product of faith in something?

I can't accept that, but, if that is your point, then let's examine a new proposition: Some kinds of knowledge are the products of sexual intercourse. The mom is always Faith. But sometimes, there is also a dad, Analytical Reasoning.

Some kinds of knowledge are the products of sexual intercourse. The mom is always Faith. But sometimes, there is also a dad, Analytical Reasoning.

Sorry, you have lost me.

By extension of the analogy...If knowledge is a "child" and faith is its "parent," then this offspring we call knowledge could be the product of either sexual or asexual reproduction. What you are emphasizing would be, in our analogy, the sexual form of knowledge production, as opposed to asexual methods such as budding or parthenogenesis or cloning.

I think it's an essential thing to consider, because my title, in that it uses the word, "merely," sort of disrespects "dad" as if he didn't have a role to play, and that would appear to be a faulty thing to imply.

I am even more bewildered. Can we get out of the mire of metaphor? Knowledge is not a child, and has no parents.

Aw, just having a little fun.

Look, we have agreed that knowledge is a kind of believing. We have agreed that the believing is a consequence of having placed trust in the sense perception and the reasoning.

I think the issue is that you are focusing on a subset of knowledge that we might call "personally verified knowledge." You want to argue that the verification is more primary than the trust.

I will concede that the verification, which ideally consists of critical observation and analytical thinking, can provide a kind of knowledge that is arguably the most reliable kind of knowledge.

But it seems to me we cannot avoid noticing that the verification process requires us to go back and harness those old mules again (sorry), sense perception and reasoning. The moment we decide to use them, we have decided to trust them. And once we have used them, we have to decide whether or not to trust the results they furnished us.

You know that Quito is the capitol of Ecuador. How do you know that? Tell how you can know that without having trusted something or somebody. Explain your entire verification process, and let's see if it didn't depend, in the final analysis, on faith in something or somebody. And if you say that you trusted your sources on this point because you determined them to be trustworthy, that will only trigger the question, "How did you determine them to be trustworthy, without first trusting your sense perception and reasoning?"

Suppose I went to Quito, and went to see the president of Ecuador. Would that do the trick?

Would you be taking your body with you?

In a large suitcase I would have to check. So, I guess I'll go alone.

Remember, my proposition is NOT that I cannot know anything. It is that knowing is essentially the same as believing--a product of having placed my faith or trust in something.

If you know that p is true, then you believe that p is true. But if you believe that p is true, that does not mean that you know that p is true. So, knowing is not believing (essentially or not).

The term "belief" is not a synonym for "trust". At least, not in its most frequent use. If I say that I believe that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I am not saying anything about trust. I am saying that I accept the proposition that Quito is the capital of Ecuador as true.

You have departed from the sequence of the argument, and have posted the same mere assertions that you have posted before--assertions that I have already carefully, repeatedly addressed.

The term "belief" is not a synonym for "trust". At least, not in its most frequent use. If I say that I believe that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I am not saying anything about trust. I am saying that I accept the proposition that Quito is the capital of Ecuador as true.

Of course you are. Trust is a synonym for belief. Perhaps by "frequent use" you mean the trusting of another human being, but do not think that is all the word encompasses. You place confidence in the integrity of the claim that the capital of Ecuador is Quito. To accept the proposition, you need to have a reliance, confidence in the claim. This is trust.

I am the one who claimed Quito is the capital. You mean I place trust in my own claim? I believe (and even know) that Quito is the capital because I use reliable sources to support that belief.And, although it is true that I trust those reliable sources, that is because I have good evidence that they are reliable. The point is that I require criteria for distinguishing reliable sources of information from unreliable sources of information. The way I do that is by using logic and evidence. Not trust.

But, this does not mean that any claim made cannot be evaluated by trust alone -- it can. You can simply have faith in the person making the claim. As we've noted, regardless how you evaluate the claim, whether it's by blind-faith, logic, or evidence, ultimately you trust. So, for you to evaluate Quito is the capital you rely on logic and evidence, and then trust the integrity of your logic and the reliably of the evidence.

And, how do you decide whether or not you should have faith, or trust in the person you have faith in or trust? I don't just trust my logic and evidence, I have very good reasons for doing so. But, if I have been drinking, I should not trust my logic, because logic and evidence tells me that my logic under those conditions is untrustworthy.

Trust can mean:
1.) Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2.) To have or place confidence in; depend on, believe in

You can have any reason in the world, but it still boils down to you trusting (for whatever reason!). I'm not saying your reasons can't lead you to a more accurate conclusion -- of course, you can differentiate a reliable and unreliable claim by applying your 'good reasons'. I'm just saying it comes down to trust, regardless where it falls.

Why don't people trust used-car salesmen, and do trust teachers? What "comes down to trust"? I think it comes down to logic and evidence, and what or whom you trust depends on that.

There have been times I've trusted another even though it went against my better judgment and evidence; I put faith in their claims for illogical reasons. You've never had an experience like this?

Again, no matter what trust depends on, in the end, you're still trusting, correct?

If you answer yes, that's all that was trying to be said. If you answer no, I'm still at a loss.