Any science of logic?

[Univalence]

I have apparently not made myself understood

Oh, I didn't realise that's what you were going for.

I thought you were speaking truth or something

[Univalence]

They do know the reason they work when they do not fail, which was my only point.

Would you say you know all the reasons an airplane works when it doesn't fail?
I'd be surprised if you do, because I would be surprised if any single person did.

That which you call "understanding" and "knowledge" is a bunch of useful heuristics. Over-simplified models.
So you are only making a case for the Ludic fallacy

[Speakpigeon]

Nobody knows all possible causes of failure of a cellphone.

They do know the reason they work when they do not fail, which was my only point.

No, they don't know. They believe they know. They are even probably certain they know.
The universe does not fail. I don't think anybody knows the reason.
How could you know the reason something works if you don't know all the reasons it could possibly fail?
EB

[RCSaunders]

How could you know the reason something works if you don't know all the reasons it could possibly fail?

That is tantamount to saying, "if you don't know everything, than you don't know anything," which would mean, since no one is omniscient, no one can know anything. I know that is the view of some. I hope it is not yours. The answer to your question is very simple. If you know how a thing is supposed to work and it does work, you know it worked because nothing that could prevent it from working has occurred, and you don't need to know what those things are that could prevent it from working.

If you are familiar with ohms law, the voltage in a DC circuit is determined by the current times the resistance (IR). If you are designing a circuit and want there to be a certain current, you design it so the voltage divided by the resistance (E/R) equals the desired current. It will work every time and you know why it works. Knowing all or any of the reasons it might not work will not change your knowing why it does work.

[Speakpigeon]

How could you know the reason something works if you don't know all the reasons it could possibly fail?

That is tantamount to saying, "if you don't know everything, than you don't know anything,"

No, it's not. If I'm looking at a house, I know what I'm looking at. Yet, I still don't know what the house for example contains or is made of, or how it was built.

which would mean, since no one is omniscient, no one can know anything.

I know some things but there are things I don't know. I know my computer seems to working properly but maybe it isn't. I sure know some good reasons that it should work properly but I don't know of all the myriad of reasons that it would not.

The answer to your question is very simple. If you know how a thing is supposed to work and it does work, you know it worked because nothing that could prevent it from working has occurred, and you don't need to know what those things are that could prevent it from working.

Except you don't know it's working properly. You may think it is working properly. You may even be certain. Yet, you don't know.
Often enough, things stop working properly, for some reason, well before we realise they don't. But according to your theory here, you would have to say that you know why the thing works properly even though it doesn't work. That's not at all what we think knowledge is.
EB

[Univalence]

If you know how a thing is supposed to work and it does work, you know it worked because nothing that could prevent it from working has occurred, and you don't need to know what those things are that could prevent it from working.

This is a retrospective view on things. Look at all your verbs - they are past tense.

If you are familiar with ohms law, the voltage in a DC circuit is determined by the current times the resistance (IR). If you are designing a circuit and want there to be a certain current, you design it so the voltage divided by the resistance (E/R) equals the desired current.

This is a prospective view on things. Your verbs are in present-continuous tense.

You are arguing two different view-points in exactly the way I described by quoting Shannon and you can't even tell.
What Shannon was pointing at was the same thing all philosophers end up pointing at: the problem of induction

It will work every time and you know why it works.

99% of the time your parachute works every time!

The other 1% we won't talk about

Knowing all or any of the reasons it might not work will not change your knowing why it does work.

Well, it does - actually. You ought to know when/how the models you depend on for achieving your goal stops working.
They define the domain/context of applicability of your model as imposed by the operational parameters.

Ohm's law holds only at a constant temperatures.

Are you familiar with the distinction between open and closed systems?

You are attempting to design your circuit pretending that it is a closed system, when it's actually an open system.
It's a simplifying assumption, and we wouldn't be able to design anything that works without making simplifying assumptions, but the fact still remains.
All models are wrong.

You can't brush the 1% error-margin under the carpet if you are designing parachutes.

[RCSaunders]

If you know how a thing is supposed to work and it does work, you know it worked because nothing that could prevent it from working has occurred, and you don't need to know what those things are that could prevent it from working.

Look at all your verbs - they are past tense.

Not really. "If you know (present tense) how a thing is supposed to work and it does work (present tense), you know (present tense) it worked (past tense, but 'works' would have the same meaning) because nothing that could prevent(present tense) it from working has occurred (past tense, but "exists" would mean the same thing), and you don't need to know (present tense) what those things are (present tense) that could prevent (present tense) it from working."

What Shannon was pointing at was the same thing all philosophers end up pointing at: the problem of induction

I'm sorry I have no idea what you are talking about here. There is no such thing as induction, there is only observation (sometimes mistaken for induction), identification and deduction.

Ohm's law holds only at a constant temperatures.

If Ohm's law did not hold at all temperatures, a change in current or voltage due to a change in resistance caused by a change in temperature could not occur.

I'm not sure what it is you object to. Is it certainty or all knowledge. I am only saying that certain knowledge is possible and that successful human life depends on such knowledge. If that is what you disagree with, I think we have nothing else to discuss.

[RCSaunders]

That's not at all what we think knowledge is.

Who's "we." You have no idea what I know knowledge is.

[Speakpigeon]

That's not at all what we think knowledge is.

Who's "we." You have no idea what I know knowledge is.

That's fallaciously incomplete. I have no idea what you're talking about.
I also don't care what you may possibly think you think.
We, i.e. me and other human beings here on Earth, if we know that p, then p has to be true at the moment that we know that p.
It also means we can't possibly find later that p was in fact false at the moment we knew p.
So, if you know why X works, then first you have to know X works to begin with, and, second, it has to be true that X works.
You can't know why X works if you don't know that it works. And you can't know that X works if you can believe it works when in fact it doesn't work.
Anyhow, since you use a private language for conversations, I just inferred correctly you're a waste of my time.
Why are you even here? You're lonely in your private place?
EB

[RCSaunders]

You're lonely in your private place?

Ah well. I can live with it. Quite happily too.

[Univalence]

You have no idea what I know knowledge is.

You have no idea what ANYTHING "is". What is a cat? An animal. What is an animal? An organism.What is an organism? You are perpetually asking "What is X?". The exact same problem appears when you self-reference knowledge by proposing that 'Knowledge is X'. This is the problem with all foundationalism - the 'define X' game is infinite and all language is (ultimately) circular.

To talk about what things ARE is to talk about what things DO. Behaviour and interaction in particular context, not context-free ontology. You cannot examine 'knowledge' in a vacuum. That's mathematical idealism at its worst.

What do you do WITH knowledge? Now that's a question that might yield some testable/falsifiable answers.

[RCSaunders]

You are perpetually asking "What is X?".

Perhaps that is a problem for you. It is not for me.

[Univalence]

Perhaps that is a problem for you. It is not for me.

Great. Then you will tell us the answer to "What is knowledge?" without circularities or contradictions then?

[RCSaunders]

Great. Then you will tell us the answer to "What is knowledge?" without circularities or contradictions then?

Sure! When you answer the question, "what is quantum physics," without any interpretation.

If you honestly want to know what knowledge is, I'll be glad to explain it. The question seems disingenuous, however, because I assume you are an adult and I do not know how any adult cannot know what knowledge is. If you do not know what knowledge is, how do you live, since you do not know if what you think and believe is knowledge or not?

Because I am going to assume your question is an honest one, here are two links. One is an introduction of epistemology that briefly describes what knowledge is, the second is a more detailed explanation of basic epistemology.

Both articles are mine.

[Univalence]

Sure! When you answer the question, "what is quantum physics," without any interpretation.

I am afraid you are going to have to lead the way here. I already admitted to being unable to answer "What is X" questions in any meaningful way.
Best I can do is ostensive definitions and I don't have one for "quantum physics".

In my field of work we have a mantra: If you ask a stupid question - you will get a stupid answer. "What is X?" is what I call a stupid question. X is Y. What is Y? Y is Z. On and on. Such answers contain no new information.

I call it "The ontological error of Philosophy". I posted about it here.

I even proposed a litmus test. Describe what things ARE without telling us what they DO. e.g don't use any verbs in your description.

But... you claim to be able to answer such questions. While you are at it. Start with "What is interpretation?"

If you do not know what knowledge is, how do you live, since you do not know if what you think and believe is knowledge or not?

I don't know how I live. But that I do is not in doubt. I just follow my intuition a lot.

Dennett dubs this competence without comprehension

Because I am going to assume your question is an honest one, here are two links. One is an introduction of epistemology that briefly describes what knowledge is, the second is a more detailed explanation of basic epistemology.

Both articles are mine.

No, I know what epistemology does. I don't know what knowledge is. What you write about doesn't strike me as "epistemology".