Again, the point is not to cast doubt on mundane claims to know things, but to emphasize the need to examine claims to know when there are issues involved. It may be that we need to distinguish between the quality of a claim to know and the process of a claim to know. The quality of a claim to know may be very high, especially in mundane cases, but in each case, if I ask myself "How do I know that?" I discover that I came to know it via a process, and that process always involves trust in something or somebody. Let's see if this makes sense...

"I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador."
1. Quality of the claim: High, supported by all available evidence, but not absolute, because (for example, just for the sake of the argument) it's conceivable and possible that Ecuador could have changed its capitol to another city since the last time I checked.
2. Process of the claim: It is based upon my trust in my sensory perception and my trust in my mental processes. (People told me about it; I read about it in multiple sources; I learned the meaning of the word "capitol" in school, etc., etc.

"I know I live in the Northern Hemisphere."
1. Quality of the claim: High, supported by all available evidence, but not absolute, because (for example, just for the sake of the argument) it's conceivable and possible that I am the "brain in the jar" or I am hallucinating, or I am insane, etc.
2. Process of the claim: Based upon my trust in my sensory perception and my trust in my mental processes. (People told me about it; I read about it in multiple sources; I learned the meaning of expression "Northern Hemisphere" in school, etc., etc.

"I know that I was born."
1. Quality of the claim: High, supported by all available evidence, but not absolute, because (for example, just for the sake of the argument) it's conceivable and possible that I am the product of a scientific experiment and all my development was by artificial means.
2. Process of the claim: Based upon my trust in my sensory perception and my trust in my mental processes. (People told me about it; I read about it in multiple sources; I learned the meaning of the word "born" in school, etc., etc.

It's obviously preposterous and pointless to doubt some of these claims to know. The exercise is like the "brain in the jar" thought experiment, done merely to illustrate a point. The problem comes along, though, when we fail to doubt and examine claims that really ought to be doubted and examined. "Democracy is the best form of government." "I can prove that God exists." "Capitalism is the only good economic system." "Conservative Republicans are a bunch of idiots."

You are pointing out that I might not know the things I claim to know. And that is right. But that does not mean that I don't know what I claim to know, it means only that I might not know what I claim to know. ...That I might be wrong does not mean that I am wrong, and if I am not wrong, then I do know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador even if I might be wrong.

Okay, I think I understand. Quito is actually NOT the capitol of Ecuador!

The capitol of Ecuador is actually Guayaquil.

So, you were trying to trick me into thinking I knew that Quito is the capitol of Ecuador, based on my trust in your testimony?

No. I don't think you understand. Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And, that it might not be the capital of Ecuador does not mean I do not know it is. Why should it? Get it now?

I agree with that 100%. Knowing can lead to new kinds of trust or new levels of trust. Such trust can then lead to new knowledge.

1. I trust my sensory perception and reasoning powers to correctly interpret data as evidence that my doctor has good credentials. Therefore...
2. I know my doctor is well-qualified. Therefore...
3. I trust my doctor.
4. My doctor says I have arthritis. Therefore...
5. I know I have arthritis.

It often seems to work just like that. The problem comes in when I see a second doctor, perhaps a specialist, who is apparently more qualified, who I decide to trust, on this particular point, more than my first doctor, and I get a different diagnosis.

Now I know that I don't have arthritis. But what if I see another specialist, equally qualified with the first, and he/she confirms "beyond a shadow of a doubt" the original diagnosis?

... Knowledge is a functional thing, not an absolute.

It is impossible for a single individual to hold absolute knowledge because they would have to know all of the other possible alternatives in order for it to be absolute.

The faith comes into play when we begin to trust the knowledge that ourselves and others hold. Because absolute certainty is impossible, people trust that others know what they claim to know, and they in turn trust that we know what we claim. This means that the potential that any so-called knowledge may in fact be false; therefore, the possibility of error is always present.

It's not that "knowledge is merely one of faith's children," rather the process of acquiring and holding knowledge requires faith to function properly. Without faith, doubt and skepticism could override an individuals ability to reason properly. And then people begin to ask silly questions like: "Do I really have hands?"

I don't know what you might mean by "absolute knowledge" but if it means something like, certainty, which is to say, the impossibility of error, I don't think that anyone was claiming to have "absolute knowledge". When a teacher gives a geography examination and asks, who knows what the capital of Ecuador is, and one of the pupils replies, "Quito. I looked it up in the Atlas last night", is the teacher wrong to say, "Very good. You know"? Is she saying that it is impossible that she and the pupil should be mistaken that Quito is the capital of Ecuador? I don't believe so. Rather she is saying that the pupil and she are not mistaken.

I was thinking about higher order thoughts, rather than simple factoids like capitals of countries or trivia of that sorts. Simple ideas that can be answered with simple affirmative and dissenting responses obviously can be absolutely known because they either are or they are not. My question know is, how is faith and this type of knowledge even related?

I don't know why you call facts, "factoids". And I don't know why you would call the fact that the Earth is round, trivial. It seems to me quite important. But, in any case, I don't think we "absolutely know" such things. Of course, I really do not know what you might mean by "absolutely know" and how it differs from just plain "know", but if you happen to mean, "know so that it would be impossible to be mistaken" I disagree with you about that. It would be possible for me to be mistaken about whether Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but since I am not mistaken about it, I know that it is.

I don't know either what you mean by "higher order thoughts" since you did not give me any examples, so I cannot even venture an intelligent guess concerning your question about faith and knowledge. But I would imagine that faith and knowledge would have the same relation whatever it is that is claimed known. Why shouldn't it? The term, "know" means the same whatever it is claimed to be known. After all, the most glorious fact, if it is a fact, is still a fact. And if I know it, then I know it in the same way I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador.

Higher ordered thinking has to do with our states of thoughts and consciousness. You cannot just open a book to verify thinking of this type.

I call facts in the nature of the capital of the U.S. is Washington DC factoids because they can be looked it up in a reference guide, and it takes no actual knowledge of Washington DC to come to the conclusion it is the capital of the country. These things either are or they are not. There are no shades of gray in between. How can this type of knowledge be faith dependent?

The earth is round is trivial in today's world. Once upon a time it wasn't, but now it is.

I just want to reiterate that the proposition in the title of the thread does not challenge the possibility of knowledge (properly defined within a context), nor does it challenge the notion that it would be pointless and impractical to doubt certain kinds of knowledge--especially the kinds of knowledge that we simply must take for granted if we are to get through our daily lives.

It simply draws attention to the observation that whenever I know something, that knowledge rests upon faith in something. So, it still appears to me that faith or trust or believing are more primary than knowledge. In that sense, faith makes knowledge possible, or, figuratively speaking, "gives birth to knowledge."

I have to trust something or somebody before I can claim to know something.

And what do I have to know before I can trust someone or something? So, I suppose that trust also rests on knowledge. So, if you are right, then neither is primary.

Dichanthelium,

Apparent reality is biologically determined, this means NOT that apparent
reality is your creation and that it is ultimately true, but that it is an interpretation, and that the experience is true, true to your biology. So, as apparent reality is a biological readout so to is the truth, if the sense of truth is your own biology, all else is of the imagination, but even the imagination has its roots within apparent reality, thus it has its roots within your own biology. If you cannot experience it, if you have not experienced it, it is of the imagination, NOT necessary false, only biology can tell. If one wishes to claim knowledge of ultimate reality, and claim that apparent reality is faith, this is an obvious misapplication of the question at hand, for truth is not the relation of ultimate reality to what is truth thus belief, but truth is what is relational to ones biology, defined by ones biology. Faith, is being lead by the experience, testimony of others, it is the trusting embrace of something as truth, which in fact is not of your experience, and can only be tested by the experience of your own biology to be found true or false. Faith is the mother of trial and error.

Yes, let's examine that!

There are only a few possibilities that I can think of. It's possible that contexts may determine the conclusion.

1. Faith is primary and knowledge is secondary.
2. Knowledge is primary and faith is secondary.
3. Neither faith nor knowledge is primary.
4. Both faith and knowledge are primary.

1. I think there are abundant examples that support this view, and I have already given many in previous posts. My contention is that every single time I claim to know something, if I ask myself, "How do you know that?" I am eventually driven back, ultimately, to faith in something or somebody.
2. If I possess any absolutely foundational or inate knowledge, or, perhaps mystical or transcendental knowledge, this would support the claim. Any other categories? What can we find as examples of knowledge that ultimately undergirds faith? "I know that I am alive." "I know that I am conscious." "I think, therefore I am." These sorts of claims do not seem to be indefensible, but they don't get us out into the other realms of knowledge, do they?
3. If neither is primary, then something else must be. Experience? Phenomena? But then that still leaves open the question of how we arrive at knowledge, and whether we can somehow arrive at that knowledge prior to faith in someone or somebody.
4. This would presume that faith and knowledge happen simultaneously. I'm not sure how one could argue that.

But why must something be primary? We can support each by the other. Why do you believe that there is a country called "Japan"? Because I have read about it, and I hear news about it. And, that means you trust your senses. Yes. And so, your trusting is primary. No, because I have good reasons to trust my senses. You have the assumption that there must be something primary. But it doesn't work that way. The body of knowledge is circular, not vertical.

Neither faith or knowledge are primary. Perceptions are though as they are fed by the senses. Both faith and knowledge rely on what people perceive.