... the examination of various metaphysical boundary conditions to see if they have anything to say about "knowledge is merely one of faith's children" ...

What are "boundary conditions"?

... sorry - engineering jargon again ... "boundary conditions" are the extremes ... and examining the extremes is frequently more enlightening than examining the typical (at least it is in engineering) ... so examining self-evidence and belief in extreme metaphysical stances is a form of discussing the issue ... but whether or not such examination will result in any enlightenment in this case remains to be seen! ... (this is what happens when you let an engineer into a philosophy forum - blame the moderators! ) ...

Then why not just discuss the issue rather than discussing Plato?

... given that you've simply repeated your question, I could simply repeat my answer - but I doubt that would accomplish anything ...

Well, it is more probable that we will get to some kind of answer by discussing the question, than we will by discussing something that has nothing to do with with the question. At least so it seems to me. I wonder why it doesn't seem so to you.

Well it is, partly. But then, as I have been saying, trust is a product of knowing. It is because I know that sensory perception is reliable that I trust it. So, trust is no more "basic" than is knowing.

... so for a naive realist, "red" is self-evident, yes? ...

I see an object that appears red, and though the color may vary depending upon environmental conditions and my sensory processes, even so, the existence of the object itself is indisputable, because I see it.

1. What do you mean by "know"? Does it mean possession of information that cannot possibly be false?

2. How do you "know that sensory perception is reliable"?

... but at that point are you still a Naive Realist, or are you now a Representative Realist? ...

Representational realism states that we do not (and cannot) perceive the external world as it really is; instead we know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is. This might be said to indicate that a barrier or 'veil of perception' prevents first-hand knowledge of the world, but the representational realist would deny that 'first hand knowledge' in this sense is a coherent concept, since knowledge is always via some means.

1. Roughly, that I believe some proposition, p. That the proposition is true, and that p is adequately justified. For instance, I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador because I believe it, it is true, and I have adequate justification for it.
And no, I might be mistaken, although, of course, if I know, I am not mistaken-otherwise I would not meet the (above) truth condition of knowledge.

... yeah, I'm not at all sure how this categorization stuff works :perplexed: ... here's what Wikipedia has to say about Representative Realism (for what it's worth):

....

... anyhoo, has the examination of selected extreme metaphysical stances provided any enlightenment so far? ... or am I just wasting our time?

Thank you! I think this may help us understand exactly where our misunderstanding or disagreement lies. Here are the follow-up questions and comments that occur to me:

1.a. "Roughly" needs to be explained, doesn't it? If we weren't trying to be precise, we wouldn't be having such a hard time.
1.b. "that I believe some proposition, p,..." indicates that knowing is a kind of believing, doesn't it? And is "believing" the same as "trusting that something is true" or "having faith in the veracity of something"?
1.c. "that the proposition is true" rules out what we might call "false knowing" or "self deception" right? In other words, if I say I know something, but what I claim to know is demonstrably false, we will not consider that to be knowing, right?
1.d. "that p is adequately justified" implies that there exists a definition of "adequately justified." What is the definition and method?

[Knowing] is believing that is true, and is justified.

How do you know whether or not something is true? Let's examine an example. "I know the earth is round." How do I know that I have indeed expressed a true fact?

Hmmm...Yeah, I'm not sure either:Not-Impressed:. I guess I figure it's more important to work out the concept than to know whose school you are sitting in:Glasses:. On the other hand, to the extent I follow a well-trodden path, it can't be smart to not learn the lingo:listening:! What's the distinction between Representational Realism and what I have been thinking of as Critical Realism:shocked:?

I think a review of the various metaphysical stances is essential. I'm trying to formulate something along those lines, but I'm not quite ready ...

I suppose you have to read some astronomy, and astrophysics. Or you have to take the word or reputable people in the field. Of course, you have to make sure they are reputable. Most of our knowledge is inferred and not direct.