The nature of evidence

[Jackalope]

Yeah, and in this case it's based on the fact that a large body of people claims to know things with no way of showing that they're true, or any real effort to do so. It's a lie to claim to know something that can't be shown to be true. Knowing only pertains to that which is true.

I think that's stretching the idea of a lie past the breaking point. People can just be wrong. Being stubbornly wrong is worse, but it's not lying. The first thing our brains do when presented with new information that contradicts our core beliefs is get to work on preserving that core belief system. It's human nature. I would stick to lying being saying something you know isn't true with the intent to deceive.

And for the record, someone CAN know something is true without being able to show that it is true. Think about it.

On that last post - yes that is correct in the strictest sense, however it's going to be difficult to convince others that you in fact know something non-demostrable. In context, "If you can't show it, you don't know it" is reasonable shorthand, if imprecise.

As to the rest, I agree - there has to be duplicity involved for a falsehood to be a lie. That word gets thrown around far too casually, here and elsewhere.