Can something come from nothing

[emjay]

I object, personally, to requiring knowledge to be true. "Apparently/conditionally true" is as good as it can really get. It's impossible to ever know what is true and what isn't (outside of abstract systems) so it's literally impossible to ever "know what you know". So it's kind of a pointless definition, with regards to reality. That's just my take on it. We don't even "know" that logic really applies to reality the way we think it does. It just appears to.

Does this mean I can "know" something and have it not be true? Absolutely. This is unavoidable. Otherwise, I can't ever say I know anything at all.

I like to look at it as split into personal knowledge (what we think we each know) and pooled knowledge (the sum total of our wisdom and experiences). Obviously the latter is going to be more reliable. I try to reserve saying I know something until I feel I can reasonably demonstrate it to be true to an unbiased observer.

Also, if knowledge has to be true, the "justified" part is irrelevant. If I "know" something, and it's true, it doesn't matter if I can justify it or not. It's correct knowledge. (But as I said, we never know whether we have correct knowledge. That's what makes justification important as a substitute.)

I wasn't taking a position on the tripartite one way or another... it's just part of the syllabus that I have to cover but haven't done so yet... as is ?Gettier's major objection to it (of which I haven't even read the gist yet).