tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31678678.post5243364640748631379..comments2023-03-25T17:33:50.251-04:00Comments on A Candle in the Dark: Justified... Again.Aaron Martin-Colbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07160246744287286823noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31678678.post-27654837482146933252008-06-20T23:41:00.000-04:002008-06-20T23:41:00.000-04:00Hey Daniel,Thanks a lot for the comment. I'm sorry...Hey Daniel,<BR/><BR/>Thanks a lot for the comment. I'm sorry it took me so long to respond.<BR/><BR/>I know it sounds like a contradiction, but I think that's semantics and has nothing to do with the fundamental concept.<BR/><BR/>If I can recognize that I do not know A, and then use the same mental process to determine that I do not know B, and then expand that to all points, I can determine thatAaron Martin-Colbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07160246744287286823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31678678.post-3788549325761636942008-06-09T18:16:00.000-04:002008-06-09T18:16:00.000-04:00I agree with you but I see a flaw that some might...I agree with you but I see a flaw that some might bring up. "Thus, knowledge doesn't exist and all we're left with is beliefs that have varying degrees of justification." How do you "know" this to be true, do you have 100% "justification" for this statement?<BR/>I am working on a response for similar arguments but was wondering if you had any input.<BR/>Thanks, DanielDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16912450950845024732noreply@blogger.com