Just because we change doesnt mean that we are infinite.

No it doesnt have anything to do with the OP so lets deal with something involving what has been aforementioned in the OP. We should only doubt if there is an answer to that doubt correct? That was something else I wanted to bring up. And also when is it legitimate to doubt?

I don't know that is true. But I think we should doubt only when there is a reason to doubt. It is legitimate to doubt when there is a reason to doubt.

Yes it does, because if you are not definite, you cannot be defined, and if you are always in flux then you are not finished with change and no one, not even you can say of your self what you are... And then you die and it means nothing...We are not objects... We cannot say what life is though we conceive of ourselves spiritually... To try to say what anyone is, is not knowledge, but is an insult...

After all the mistakes humanity has made out of certainty should we not doubt as a matter of course??? We should not say we know without a great deal of reason...And then we should doubt that we indeed do know...

I think GoshisDead made a good point in the other thread similar to this and that basically was this:

knowledge about something is a claim....a claim that hinges on any justification one assumes is sufficient to make the knowledge claim.

Knowledge is not a claim. The claim to know is a claim. When I say that I know, then I am claiming to know. But it is knowledge that is what I claim. It is not, itself a claim. Suppose I claim to have a million dollars. The million dollars (if it exists) is not, itself, the claim. The claim is that I have a million dollars. You have to distinguish between what it is you are claiming, and the claim itself. They are not the same thing. And what is justified is the knowledge claim. Not knowledge.

Knowledge is not a claim. The claim to know is a claim. When I say that I know, then I am claiming to know. But it is knowledge that is what I claim. It is not, itself a claim. Suppose I claim to have a million dollars. The million dollars (if it exists) is not, itself, the claim. The claim is that I have a million dollars. You have to distinguish between what it is you are claiming, and the claim itself. They are not the same thing. And what is justified is the knowledge claim. Not knowledge.

yes. I understand that...

You claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador because you assume you have sufficient justification for doing so. Probably based on what you've personally been told and things you've personally read.

however, if you started reading things that said Quito was NOT the capital of Ecuador and several people started telling you that Quito was NOT the capital of Ecuador, then you might start to doubt that claim of knowledge

yes. I understand that...

You claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador because you assume you have sufficient justification for doing so. Probably based on what you've personally been told and things you've personally read.

however, if you started reading things that said Quito was NOT the capital of Ecuador and several people started telling you that Quito was NOT the capital of Ecuador, then you might start to doubt that claim of knowledge

Well, it would depend on what I was reading. But even if I began to doubt that I knew that the capital was Quito, what difference would that make? I would still know it even if I doubted I knew it. I don't have to believe I know something in order for me to know it.

yes that's true but what you claim you know has no bearing on whether what you know is true

Of course. And my claim to know may be false. So that is a good reason to think that my claim to know is not identical with knowing. For I may claim to know and not know.

Sure, one can doubt what one knows based on new testimony and newly written things. But this scenario has no bearing on the fact that he still knows P so long as he is still justified in believing that P and P is true.

New testimony and other newly written things can undercut his justification for believing that P only if that new testimony is sufficiently weighty to defeat his previous reasons for believing that Quito is the capital of Ecuador.

Testimony and belief do not equal knowledge, but they do support or undercut certainty... What does it take to disprove the obvious fact that the earth is flat???So what if it is spherical because it is for all practical purposes, flat...

Even the mountains which tickle the sky and take our breath away are such insignificant blips on the earth that the must be exagerated on topigraphical maps or the would seem as nothing to the flatness of the earth...Because we are so small, and the earth is so large, its curve is too is insignificant, and if it does not signify, it has no meaning... Certainty is the enemy of knowledge because it robs us of the need to look beyond the veil of the known to the unknown...

Again, certainty is not knowledge. So what difference does this make?



How is any of this relevant to what I said? A person can still know that P so long as there are no potential defeaters for one's reasons for believing that P, and P is true.

I think the point he may be shedding is that one can NEVER know in the absolute sense.....one can only claim to know based on an assumption of sufficient justification.

Now it may very well be the case that one does indeed know....but it would be merely a coincidence.

I think the point he may be shedding is that one can NEVER know in the absolute sense.....one can only claim to know based on an assumption of sufficient justification.

Now it may very well be the case that one' s claim to know is correct....but it would be merely a coincidence.

I don't think that's right. You mean to say that no one can ever be certain in any absolute sense. But surely, one can still know that P if one has indefeasible justification for believing that P.

I may not be certain Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but I can still know that it is if Quito is, in fact, the capital of Ecuador and I have no good reason to doubt this.

I don't think that's right either. No one can ever "know" something by coincidence. If someone believes that P, and P is true, one may still not have sufficient warrant for believing that P--just as your local fortune-teller may come to the belief that you will die in a fatal car accident one day, and happen to be correct--but no one would countenance that the fortune-teller knew this, even if he or she were right (unless, of course, you think staring into a crystal ball is a source of knowledge).

But, remember, a claim to know can be justified. And if my claim to know is justified, then if my claim is correct (if I do know) that is not a coincidence. (See Extrain's post #78).