EDIT: I agree that it isn't possible to claim 1 without also claiming 2, and vice versa. Perhaps that's all you mean by "Why not both?" If so, it's fine. — J

I’m trying to leave the forum for now. But, yes, claim 1 and claim 2 are semantically the same (with a possible semantic difference regarding emphasis). As to “why not both?” I gave an overview for why both will need to occur for JTB knowledge to obtain. Someone who is steadfastly certain in their belief that X (is true) without having any reason to believe it (this being synonymous with not having any justification for it) … ought to be trusted to in fact know what they’re talking about? If this were so, then, heck, planet Earth must be hollow and inhabited by sapient beings living in paradise. This then being a factual truth because others are so certain of it. I’ve encountered such. As to differing forms of knowledge, again, the knowledge-by-acquaintance and knowledge-by-JTB dichotomy I’ve previously mentioned showcases this. The first is had devoid of conscious belief; one doesn’t believe that one is seeing green grass but simply so does (and thereby knows one does, this in the knowledge by acquaintance sense of knowledge and not the JTB sense). But once belief is introduced, it must be both true and one must have (valid) reason for believing it so in order to count as knowledge. Some people want all knows to have the strength of knowledge-by-acquaintance. We can dream away all we like, but that is not the nature of the reality we’re living in. Else, again, the planet must then be hollow.