What is your epistemology?

[theVOID]

Forgive me, it was late when I wrote the post, and I didn't explain myself well enough.

When I say I believe it is impossible to know something, the reasoning is more based on whether you can know what you "know" is true. The way I define knowledge is in the absolute sense; i.e. knowledge has to be true in reality. For an objective observer of our reality (one who knows everything), if they see me stating something as truth, say "X is purple", and they know (through their omniscience) that X is indeed purple, then my statement is one of knowledge.

Seems you are falling into your own gripe with non-standard definitions In philosophy knowledge is a true justified belief - That being, I can be said to "know" P if P and I am justified in believing that P.

There are essentially two definitions of knowledge, Priori such as the logical absolutes and posteriori knowledge such as that gained through certain experience - the epistemologies deal with Posteriori knowledge and basically seek to find standards that are consistent enough to form TJB - Reliablism then is an epistemology dealing mostly with justification, as belief needs to be both true and justified to be considered knowledge, it is important to approach justification with a method that is most likely to tend towards the truth while being least likely to permit contradictory conclusions and other such misnomers.

The problem occurs when a subjective observer (i.e me) tries to rationalise that knowledge. From my perspective, I do not know that what I claim is true. I could have very good reasons for believing that X is purple, but no way (other than gaining omniscience) of confirming it.

To a degree of absolute certainty that is true, however having a TJB requires no such certainty. Would you say that you cannot 'know' the effects of gravity? It seems ridiculous to put acceptance of something like Gravity down to a probability... The probability of an object falling towards the most prevalent gravitational object provided that there is no competing force (such as magnetism if the object is metallic) is 1 - This leaves no room for doubt and is "knowledge".

* From this point on i agree with you if we declare knowledge and absolute certainty to be mutually exclusive - However, I don't agree that they are mutually exclusive, certain things can be known with a degree of certainty that is absolute, however there is also knowledge that simply requires TJB*

---

I'm not impressively knowledgeable in the area of philosophy (nor a particularly big fan of it in the first place), but I have read about the subject pretty extensively (note that reading and retaining are not the same thing). It has always seemed to me that (much like political ideologies), no single philosophy really works if taken entirely on it's own. Rather, each individual philosophy provides workable ways to perceive, interpret, and comprehend things and it feels perfectly natural to mix and match them as an individual... therefore not claiming to adhere to any specific one.

In other words, in every philosophy I have ever read about, there are things that I agree with and things that I do not (but might agree with a different philosophy's take, instead).

That said, I like this Reliablism. I don't recall hearing of it before.

That is somewhat true, however there are many epistemologies that are flawed and therefore cannot be true - The main point of contention in each comes with the idea of justification, it seems that some justifications have inherent flaws that make them false when applied to certain situations, traditional reliabilism (process reliabilism) too has this problem in the case of the bootstrapping problem, though the mixture of Mentalism and Reliablism proposed by Juan Comesana as far as I can tell has solved this problem.

The problem with the idea you proposed, that they are all equally valid in some way simply is not true, any justification that can allow certain things like contradictions and conclusions on absurd propositions (such as the new evil demon problem) simply cannot be seen as accurate, they are in a sense falsifiable - the hard part is determining what ones fail in this regard.