>It's not about anything. It's specifically about knowledge.
Knowledge is a subset of certainty. Epistemology is about producing certainty. Whatever you call knowledge and whatever evidence counts as knowledge are questions Within the understanding of certainty. Epistemology also includes understanding Uncertainty, guesses, illusions, none of which is inherently linked to producing knowledge. In other words, there is an additive side, which you represent, and a subtractive one.
>The Munchhausen trillemma.
This is a non-problem. The universe is recursive. Knowledge must be certain Enough, bound by purpose. It cannot be an ultimate thing. All words that reference ultimates, whether certainty, scale, whatever, are placeholders for the unknown. They are not elements of knowledge, they are an answer - a framework for understanding that which falls Within that ultimately unknown limit. All that's doing is pointing out what i'm saying, that there is no ultimate certainty.
>My personal solution to this problem is to precisely to pull myself up by my bootstraps. This solves the [url=
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping]bootstrapping problem[/url] by ignoring the fact that everything I call "knowledge" I learned from others.
You must accept the cogito then.
>Certainty is a property of knowledge.
Information only becomes knowledge if the certainty is there first.
Certainty can exist without knowledge but knowledge cannot exist without certainty.
>Trivially: do you know that you are uncertain?
It looks like everyone but me isn't cognizant of the distinction of gathering information v. logically organizing that information. One is an additive process, the other is subtractive. In the former case you gather. In the latter case you eliminate. That both require integration isn't sufficient cause to blend them for epistemological purposes. Quite the contrary, we need to make these distinctions in order to render our understanding of epistemology actionable.
>>Are you seeking to refute or bolster my point?
>Neither.
Then i disagree!
>Infinite regress: justify your justifications.
Back to Munchausen. Because we are temporally limited creatures we cannot obtain ultimate certainty. That's utterly irrelevant. My intent here is to produce a better framework for understanding epistemology. The evidence is sufficient to that purpose, not any hypothetical and/or ultimate one you can devise on the spot. My larger contention is that this understanding is sufficient, whether or not necessary, to clarify all questions in epistemology. It adds understanding, not knowledge.
>If your experience/perception is in some way jaded or skewed - does this mean your knowledge is incorrect?
No. You're judging the knowledge content of immediate understandings by the standard of future hypothetical data. Stop it.
>>I know. I use the Bayes theorem. It's a great instrument, but I am not a Bayesian.
That you don't use it explicitly or intentionally doesn't imply that you don't use it. Of course it's a technical theory and i don't mean the technical understanding of it, just the simple pragmatic one.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFv5DvrLDCg
Ahh Julia Galef. I haven't listened to her podcast in.. hours. I'm super-glad Massimo went away. He has epistemological problems. But anyway, to not be Explicitely Bayesian is referencing a technical matter which is beyond what i'm discussing here, and Julia isn't exactly the best at epistemology, however expert she is in understanding the technical intricacies of critical thinking theory.