Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

[Speakpigeon]

what evidence do you personally have that the Moon exists ?

Observation / photographs / video / gravity / tides / eclipses

How could you know any of that if not through your subjective experience?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Does this mean you think its not legitimate for you to claim to know that the Moon exists ?
Does this mean you think its not legitimate for you to claim to know you are in pain when you are in pain ?

No because consensus regarding the existence of the Moon can be arrived at through evidence
No because it is something I will know even if it cannot be confirmed through inter subjectivity

So there are two species of knowledge: subjective and "inter-subjective"?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Could you or anyone falsify my claim that I am thinking about going for a walk ?
Could you or anyone falsify my claim that I know pain whenever I feel pain ?

No because mental states cannot be subject to falsification

So subjective knowledge is not falsifiable while inter-subjective knowledge is?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Does anyone knows anything at all ?
Ok lets assume we all know a few things
For example lets assume its a fact that John knows that the Moon exists
Given this is it at all possible do you think to falsify the fact that John knows that the Moon exists ?

Whether anyone knows anything depends on how knowledge is defined
You cannot falsify a fact because they are non falsifiable by definition

But what is a fact? Isn't it something you know? But outside mental states, you said knowledge is falsifiable. So, facts can be falsified...
EB

[Speakpigeon]

And presumably we dont know all swans that have ever existed
But more importantly for falsification we presumably dont know any swan that will only exist in the future
So how could we possibly claim to know things like all swans are white ?

All swans are not white so knowledge of everyone that has ever or will ever exist is therefore not necessary
One black swan is all that is needed to falsify the claim that all swans are white and so it has been falsified

But may be you haven't seen any black swans yet. If so, you would believe that all swan are white. If it is the inter-subjective consensus, you'll say you know all swans are white. Yet, no one would have seen all swans. So, how is it possible to know something you have no evidence for?
EB

[Age]

Could you or anyone falsify my claim that I am thinking about going for a walk ?
Could you or anyone falsify my claim that I know pain whenever I feel pain ?

No because mental states cannot be subject to falsification

So subjective knowledge is not falsifiable while inter-subjective knowledge is?
EB

Objective knowledge is not falsifiable, while subjective and inter-subjective knowledge can be.

[Age]

And presumably we dont know all swans that have ever existed
But more importantly for falsification we presumably dont know any swan that will only exist in the future
So how could we possibly claim to know things like all swans are white ?

All swans are not white so knowledge of everyone that has ever or will ever exist is therefore not necessary
One black swan is all that is needed to falsify the claim that all swans are white and so it has been falsified

But may be you haven't seen any black swans yet. If so, you would believe that all swan are white.

I am not sure who the "you" is that is being referred to here, but NOT all people would believe such a ridiculous thing. Just because i have not seen a black swan yet does NOT mean that i would believe that all swans are white.

If it is the inter-subjective consensus, you'll say you know all swans are white. Yet, no one would have seen all swans.

As these two sentences stand, to me, they do not make sense together. How does "Yet, no one would have seen all swans" come into the equation regarding if just just one black swan has been seen or not?

So, how is it possible to know something you have no evidence for?
EB

Agreement.

As I stated before there is only one thing that can be Truly known, FORE SURE. The evidence for this only one known thing becomes stronger with more agreement.

[surreptitious57]

So it seems inter subjectivity is ultimately founded on subjectivity

It is a multiple subjective perspective rather than simply an individual one
From a scientific perspective it is more rigorous because it minimises bias

[surreptitious57]

So pain as the subjective quality of painfulness cannot be evidenced

No it cannot but it is still real for the one who is experiencing it though

[surreptitious57]

How could you know any of that if not through your subjective experience

All knowledge or experience is subjective because it cannot be anything else
Even objective knowledge has to be processed from a subjective perspective

[surreptitious57]

So there are two species of knowledge : subjective and inter subjective

Subjective : knowledge only an individual can possess
Inter subjective : knowledge many individuals possess

[surreptitious57]

facts can be falsified

If any fact can be falsified then it was not a fact to begin with
A true fact is therefore one that is non falsifiable by definition

[surreptitious57]

But may be you have not seen any black swans

In which case the default position is that all swans are white
Till some one sees a black one and the claim is then falsified

[Age]

But may be you have not seen any black swans

In which case the default position is that all swans are white

But who, "in their right and/or sound Mind" as some might say, would have/take that position?

Why would one have/take a "default position", which could be WRONG, when they could just LOOK AT the Truth of things instead?

If it was I, then I would just be, literally, of the view, and say; 'I have not yet seen a swan other than white ones'.

What is wrong with expressing a truth, instead of making a claim that could be falsified anyway?

Till some one sees a black one and the claim is then falsified

This is what I question;

WHY claim some thing, which could be falsified anyway?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT the Truth of things instead?

WHY do people NOT answer these questions?

[surreptitious57]

Why would one have / take a default position which could be WRONG when they could just LOOK AT the Truth of things instead

A default position is merely a position that is true at the time based upon all available knowledge
It is not an absolute position and so is subject to revision with the acquisition of new knowledge

All swans are white would be the default position until a black swan was discovered