Yikes. After all of this, you admit that knowing is the same as believing?
No, read more carefully. Knowledge is belief, but belief is not necessarily knowledge. Or, knowledge is a subset of belief. Or, belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge.
Or, knowledge and belief are not identical.
Is that more clear, or do you need further clarification?
What does 'with warrant' mean to you?
"Warrant" means the same as "justification" in epistemology- warrant is a sufficient/adequate basis, and clearly will be different with respect to different sorts of claims in different contexts.
I showed your error in my post #52
You did no such thing, but I'll review your post #52 anyways-
No. That's false. When one is certain, one knows. When one knows, one is certain.
This is a bare assertion. You're simply playing "I know you are but what am I" here. In any case, you've failed to give any reason to suppose that my examples were not exactly what they appeared to be- cases of knowledge without certainty and certainty without knowledge.
Of course you knew it was on the table. Now you know that you were mistaken about it.
If I was mistaken about it, then I did not know.
'To know' is a verb. That means that it is an action. What is the action of knowing?
Knowing is, as a species (i.e. subset) of belief, a
propositional attitude; it is a disposition towards a proposition, namely, believing/consenting to/accepting it, and in particular, a proposition which expresses a truth, and doing so with warrant.
But your understanding of the action of knowing sounds to me like belief in magic. You seem to think that 'to know' means 'to hold a perfect, infallible understanding in one's head of some matter outside of one's head.'
Needless to say, this is the same strawman you've been trotting out to shadow-box this entire time. Nobody has claimed we are infallible, least of all me, or that we must
know that we know, in order to know. But there are facts- things in the world are a certain way- and we can describe the world via language. When we describe the world accurately, this is called truth. When we accept or believe true, rather than false descriptions of the world, and do so on a reasonable basis, then we
know. If it is magic, then it is a very mundane and everyday sort of magic.
Remember when I asked you who really knew the shirt's color and you answer 'whoever is right about the shirt's color'? You should think about that answer and work your way through the whole problem. It looks like this:
A: You and I look at the shirt and disagree about the color. Which one of us really knows the color?
B: Whichever one of us is right.
A: And how do we determine which one is right?
B: We look at the shirt.
A: You and I look at the shirt and disagree about the color. Which one of us really knows the color?
So how do you break this circle, E? I've asked you if we can rely on majority opinion of all human observers, but you have denied that.
So how do we determine which of us is right about (knows) the color?
That's the question which you really do need to force yourself to answer, I think.
Two people without visual impairment (or without some other variable) will not find themselves in such a situation (unless one of them has, by some odd twist of fate, been taught different words to refer to colors than what the rest of us use; for instance, their parents taught them that red is called "blue" and visa versa). And color is an eminently poor choice of example for this issue, since it is a secondary quality and has a subjective aspect not present with other properties or claims, although I'm guessing you chose it for this very reason.
Consider a better example, one we've used already- the winner of last years Super Bowl. You say it was the Ravens, I say it was the Lions. Who is right, and how do we find out? Well, we check the box score, for starters- which confirms your belief that the Ravens won. But suppose I dispute it, claiming the box score was a fabrication- perhaps we try to find an official or impartial source for a box score (whatever that would be), or there is a third party who watched the game and is a mutual friend who both of us trust, or maybe we simply get a copy of the game and re-watch it; one way or another, we'll figure it out.
You act as if disputes over facts somehow imply that there are no facts. Needless to say, this is non-sequitur.
(And let's also note that you continue to avoid giving any arguments for your position, arguments against my position, or even any clear statement of what your position consists in. Why so evasive? Or is it that you aren't really sure, and that this is simply an inexplicable article of faith for you, that knowledge and belief are identical?)
