If knowledge depends upon constants (natural law) and memory, and we can demonstrate examples or proofs that memories are imperfect and that constants are, paradoxically, inconstant, then would it be impossible to know if we know anything at all? And if we can’t know that we know what we think we know, can what we think we know be considered knowledge? If we can’t, can we know that we can’t?

If we can’t know that we know anything, then we are left with a choice between dogmatic skepticism, dogmatic naturalism, and dogmatic objectivism. Yet, without any Knowledge of knowledge, how can we choose? And if we can’t choose, are we left only with nihilism? If some rationalists are correct, and all we know is our own minds, then are we forced into solipsism?

I for one, despite exceptions, find it to be incumbent upon us to place our faith in constants and memory, as they are, functionally speaking, necessary for any meaningful cognitive pursuit; and thus for forming expectations and goals; and thus necessary in order to act. Is that enough of a justification?

__________________
[I][FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="3"]Proud to be an American...[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"][I]"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House[/I][/FONT]

Your final paragraph indicates that you pre-reject any reply/rebuttal of the first two paragraphs. Ergo, I decline to bother doing so. In reply to the final question, yes, it may certainly be sufficient for you (or anyone else). It is definitely insufficient for me and for science.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Science is not about knowing, science is about the best probabilities. We actually do not have to know anything, if we define knowledge in its deepest, philosophical meaning.

In ordinary life, however, that which is really probable based on science can be considered as knowledge.

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Agreed, science is and always has been best guess.

__________________
[FONT="Impact"][SIZE="3"][B]Every kingdom divided against itself, is brought to decimation... [/B][/SIZE][/FONT]

You foget an even bigger consideration: interpretation.

I am not sure I follow. Can you elaborate on that statement?

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

And how would you define knowledge in its deepest, philosophical meaning?

Well, in a way similar to René Descartes, who said: "I think, therefore I am". Off course, we cannot even be quite sure there is such a thing as the self, doing the thinking, but there is at least something experiencing itself to be me and thinking. This is what I mean with knowledge in its deepest, philosophical meaning.

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Beliefs and knowledge are considerably affected by interpretation.

Take the modern Bible...2/3 of the world (guessing) bases their belief system on a book that is barely recognizable when compared to the earliest writings. Things in contrast to early rulers beliefs were simply removed or altered..thus affecting religions forever more.

The best excepted theory in information distribution sometimes has more to do with who the scientist is other then what he theorizes.
(I was watching something a while back on future evolution and these great scientists had octopuses swinging from trees in the jungle. )

__________________
[FONT="Impact"][SIZE="3"][B]Every kingdom divided against itself, is brought to decimation... [/B][/SIZE][/FONT]