No, it does not. From your own link:



Only those who do not understand it believe that it shows that the cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

You could have just as easily asked can we know that anything exists? You'd have got the same responses. Can we know anything?

Well, no, actually. You can never say "I can say with 100% certainty that 'x' does not exist. No matter how unlikely it is that unicorns do not exist, there is still some small chance that they do.

But you are assuming that unless someone is certain, he does not know. Have you an argument to show that assumption is true?

The confusion between certainty and knowledge strikes again it seems.

If only it were that simple but I don't think that's the problem. I think some people hold to a theory of justification that requires certainty.

The confusion between certainty and knowledge strikes again it seems.

Yes, it is a pervasive, and, I suppose, understandable confusion. I think it stems from the fact that we do not sincerely claim to know unless we feel certain that we are right, and we confuse the conditions for claiming that we know with the conditions of knowing. They are different.

But you are assuming that unless someone is certain, he does not know. Have you an argument to show that assumption is true?

No, I'm claiming that there is no such thing as certainty at all, and that we can never truly know

If only it were that simple but I don't think that's the problem. I think some people hold to a theory of justification that requires certainty.

Here is my question: What is the justification for their theory of justification? How do they know that justification requires certainty?

No, I'm claiming that there is no such thing as certainty at all, and that we can never truly know (or truly not-know) whether anything exists (except loosely ourselves, perhaps).

All you can do believe that a certain thing is true based on the information available to you, and act accordingly.

If you look across the street and it is clear, cross the road. If you then get hit and killed by and invisible, silent car, no one would accuse you of being foolish for going about your life with a foolhardy "there are no such things as invisible silent cars" attitude. It's reasonable to act as if invisible silent cars don't exist, but it's not reasonable to say "I am certain that invisible cars do not exist".

Think of knowing as simply a set of conditions which must be met. You must believe P, you must have justification for P, and P must be true. Certainty is a side issue. No matter how uncertain or certain you are about something, you can still know. Now, justification may increase your certainty, but it need not. You may have justification for a belief, but still be uncertain. Isn't that true?

Isn't the point of justification to remove doubt about a belief?

If knowledge is JTB, then we can know that we know, and this meta-knowledge relation is infinitely recursive, which I reckon is equivalent to certainty.

You may have justification for a belief, but still be uncertain. Isn't that true?

0.9 reccuring does not equal 1.

If knowledge is JTB, then we can know that we know, and this meta-knowledge relation is infinitely recursive, which I reckon is equivalent to certainty.

Even if we can be certain, how does it follow that in order to know we have to be certain?