Brilliant.

Dispute what I said as being wrong?

If our beliefs are all wrong, then our actions could potentially be catastrophic.

If it's not certain that water keeps me alive and I cannot be certain of my belief that it does, why drink it? It could quite easily kill me or others.

If it appears that I believe this, I may in fact not and could, in the future, stop drinking water.

Why is it ridiculous?

If my thoughts and beliefs are not certain, even with what I appear to feel and think, then that makes me feel uneasy.

What if our loved ones are not real?
What if our beliefs are so far false that we cause harm to others?

But again, the actuality of sense and experience is debatable.

I'm new to all this...what's that haha?

I'm not saying it affects your life.

I'm saying knowledge cannot be gained without certainty.

But, the 'memories' of the show could be false also?

I wouldn't want to live it that way, on the contrary.

I'm asking if this 'good evidence' can be mistaken? I believe it can.
There is as much chance that you watched Countdown, as you did not.
The indicators that you had, cannot be certain. So if you 'feel' like you've watched it, this feeling may be mistaken - you may actually believe you missed the show?

You say:
Likewise, since I have good evidence that other people have brains, and similarly I have a brain, and because of the other anatomical equivalencies between me and other human beings, and because of their similar behavior, I can infer inductively by analogy that based on this evidence, they are conscious like me.

This is what I mean, "good evidence".

This good evidence comes from our beliefs, our thoughts, our feelings etc. What if these indicators are false? What if the good evidence from my 'belief' is false because it isn't actually my belief, rather that I was mistaken.

Wouldn't knowledge therefore be impossible?

How do I find this post? thank yuo

Can you please summarise?

Not trolling, simply unsure.

How is certainty not required for knowledge?

I believe car will hurt.
That belief may not be my own (may not even be a belief,just me misunderstanding or making a mistake)

Thanks for replys.

My question:

If a car was heading towards me at great speed, I would, perhaps, conclude that this would kill me

This conclusion could be built upon the premis of me believing fast cars kill if hitting a pedestrian.

However even my reasoning for this (fast car = death) would not be certain. I could, in theory, be standing in front of the car believing there is no danger and a clever demon making it seem otherwise.

Is this possible?

So how is it best to stop?

But how can conclusions be stronger or weaker when we cannot know the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments?

Strengths and weaknesses would also be uncertain?

Are 'you' and 'thinking' the same or different?

Reasons why it is true:
It may appear that it is happening.

Reaaons why it is false:
It may appear that it is not happening.

If I can't be certain that it is happening, both reasons are equally valid? I may or may not be viewing the sunset. My thoughts may be false and I'm not even viewing it.

This is so confusing, sorry

But with certainty things would be known.

Without this, in my mind, there is as much chance the sunset is happening as there is that it is not.

Yes, there are reasons which our senses may suggest it is happening. But these could be false.

How can I enjoy a view that I cannot even confirm thatvI think I am watching?

But the good reason (observing) is not certain either. It just appears to be a good reason.

What is there to say that I'm not simply seeing something entirely different?

Because without certainty, whats to say it's actually happening?

Surely there would be as much chance that it is not?