pennywise121

[QUOTE=HoundstoothHero]Many epistemological arguments involve certainty in justification, and a prevailing view is that knowledge requires certainty to be absolute. Any doubt (or chance of doubt) necessarily prohibits knowledge.

My own view regarding knowledge gravitates toward what is referred to as the 'fallibilist' approach: it is impossible for us to achieve absolute certainty, and therefore any such high-standards approach to knowledge results in skepticism. What we as humans 'know' does not rely on absolute certainty, but rather on good enough reasons for believing a (necessarily true) proposition. G.E. Moore's response to skepticism also appeals to me: it is more reasonable to believe we at least know some things than to believe we know nothing./QUOTE]

You are talking about JTB principle truth. I have a belief that i can justify which turns out to be true. Can we truly call this knowledge? Moreover, we are looking at this whole thing in a very specific manner. From today's viewpoint, we would like to require certainty for knowledge, but none of us can even say why we do the things we do. If we say we know anything, it would seem to make sense that it would be about ourselves, but even that is questionable (see Festinger's work on misatribution of aroused states or Schacthter's work on conformity in group settings).