Is evidentialism justified?

[Edwardo Piet]

Err..because I was observing the way you apply criteria in what you have written. If it was an assumption, I wouldn't have gone to all the bother of talking about your application of criteria.

If your observation is baseless it is an assumption. I am asking if your observation has any basis.

It's a relevant question to ask because it makes me become aware that it commits the begging the question fallacy as it is defined. Because it commits the begging the question fallacy it can't lead to any conclusion. The fact that it can't lead to any conclusion demonstrates its unjustifiability.

I don't think you're understanding what I mean by the question being relevant. By 'relevant' I mean, in this context, 'having to do with the possibility of justification". I claim that it isn't always relevant, because it is possible to know something without knowing how you know it* (you confirm this when you talk about self-awareness below). In order for the question to be relevant, you need to show the contrary.

"Isn't always relevant" isn't the same as "irrelevant."

If you know that you are self-aware then that rather contradicts your (apparently global and iterative) skepticism.

I stated in my first post on this thread that I wasn't skeptical about tautology being absolutely true, nor was I skeptical about my self-awareness.

And to say that you "just know" that skepticism is true is beneath someone such as yourself who is well capable of recognising a self-defeating statement.

I don't know that skepticism is true.

You have shown me elsewhere that you are a big fan of dictionaries. I'm sure you can find one that gives this definition. The Law of Identity (which applies to all things) is a tautology - but it makes no sense to then say that "all things are tautological". It's a category error - propositions can be tautological, but not "things".

All things are themselves and no things are not themselves. That's obeys the Law of Identity, and is tautological.

I define "redness" itself as "The totality of all red things in existence". I define "tautology" itself as "the totality of all tautological things in existence". Something is tautological if it is itself, all things are themselves, all things are tautological. Tautology itself (not the concept of tautology) is the same as "all things that are themselves" because of how I define Universals.

The concept of "tautology" is of course completely different to the existence of tautology itself. To confuse the two is to make a Use/Mention distinction error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%9...istinction

You can dispute the existence of tautology itself (not the concept) but that is just down to how we define Universals.

It's called sarcasm, as made clear by my use of blatantly false statements.

Is the point you are making sarcastically a baseless assumption? Or do you not mean to make a point at all, whether a sarcastic one or a literal one?