> I mean "Known for sure; established beyond doubt".
OK!
> Yes. I've already said so. Consider re-reading my previous comment in light of my response "to avoid that confusion".
Well, possibly you have, just trying to avoid confusion.
Could you give one example of such a claim? (Yes, I understand you might already have mentioned one, I just want to be sure I am not misrepresenting you.)
> Agreed. Those conclusions have less basis, but our knowledge can wind up aligned with the truth without us being certain.
Exactly! But note: "less basis" does not mean "no basis". Also, just asserting certainty doesn't give you any more basis, only actually having justified certainty does. The fact that you might prefer absolute certainty for the basis of (some of) your beliefs does not mean it's something you can actually have.
> Then we are done with our conversation. If you can't be certain of anything, then all of logic is suspect.
Well, yes, of course it is!? Are you saying that you have never made what you now consider errors in your logical thinking, where you were convinced that you came to a conclusion through correct logical reasoning and later came to the conclusion that you were wrong about that?! And if that has happened to you (I mean, it happened in this thread, so I assume you will agree that it has happened to you?), then how would you distinguish logical conclusions or methods of logical reasoning that you are certain are correct from those that you currently are mistakenly convinced are correct? And if you you can't distinguish those, how would not all of logic be suspect, at least just enough to not justify labeling it as absolutely certain?
And maybe more importantly: How is that relevant to our conversation? Either we agree on some claim or argument or we don't, how does it make any difference whether either one of us is certain about it?!
> This flies in the face of a comment you've made previously in two ways, both regarding logic and your awareness:
I don't see how, could you explain?
OK!
> Yes. I've already said so. Consider re-reading my previous comment in light of my response "to avoid that confusion".
Well, possibly you have, just trying to avoid confusion.
Could you give one example of such a claim? (Yes, I understand you might already have mentioned one, I just want to be sure I am not misrepresenting you.)
> Agreed. Those conclusions have less basis, but our knowledge can wind up aligned with the truth without us being certain.
Exactly! But note: "less basis" does not mean "no basis". Also, just asserting certainty doesn't give you any more basis, only actually having justified certainty does. The fact that you might prefer absolute certainty for the basis of (some of) your beliefs does not mean it's something you can actually have.
> Then we are done with our conversation. If you can't be certain of anything, then all of logic is suspect.
Well, yes, of course it is!? Are you saying that you have never made what you now consider errors in your logical thinking, where you were convinced that you came to a conclusion through correct logical reasoning and later came to the conclusion that you were wrong about that?! And if that has happened to you (I mean, it happened in this thread, so I assume you will agree that it has happened to you?), then how would you distinguish logical conclusions or methods of logical reasoning that you are certain are correct from those that you currently are mistakenly convinced are correct? And if you you can't distinguish those, how would not all of logic be suspect, at least just enough to not justify labeling it as absolutely certain?
And maybe more importantly: How is that relevant to our conversation? Either we agree on some claim or argument or we don't, how does it make any difference whether either one of us is certain about it?!
> This flies in the face of a comment you've made previously in two ways, both regarding logic and your awareness:
I don't see how, could you explain?