What is your definition of justification?

[PeteOlcott]

I count analytic knowledge as infallible because you can know it right now.
I count empirical knowledge as reliable as it seems to continue to prove itself to be.

So, is the latter knowledge? If yes, well unfortunately it can turn out later to be false. This is an aspect of science, that knowledge can be revised when more information comes in.

As far as analytic knowledge being infallible, our interpretations are never infallible. You might think your sense of the semantics of a term are corrent but be incorrent. Someone could make a mistake related to what a bachelor means in that classic example of an analytic conclusion.

And any process of drawing a conclusion takes time.

The reason that I focus on the analytic side is that on the empirical side the closest
that we can get to actual knowledge is a preliminary estimate. If our own memories
are fake then our own memories of are own mother are false.

I am not allowing room for misinterpretation, I am only including denotation.
2 + 3 = 5, (decimal integers) anyone disagreeing is simply wrong.

The 100% complete definition of every natural language term is linked to
its GUID within an inheritance hierarchy of the set of all general knowledge.
Context specific information has its own knowledge ontology.

Any expressions of language requiring interpretation are excluded from
knowledge. If someone mistakes an unmarried male for someone that
graduated from a four year college then they failed to pay attention
to the globally unique identifier (GUID) index to the term "bachelor".

[Iwannaplato]

The reason that I focus on the analytic side is that on the empirical side the closest
that we can get to actual knowledge is a preliminary estimate. If our own memories
are fake then our own memories of are own mother are false.

So, again, to be clear: you agree that you do not consider scientific conclusions, models, etc., as knowledge. IOW the current consensus in biology, physics and so on should not be considered knowledge or at least you do not consider it knowledge.

Any expressions of language requiring interpretation are excluded from
knowledge. If someone mistakes an unmarried male for someone that
graduated from a four year college then they failed to pay attention
to the globally unique identifier (GUID) index to the term "bachelor".

Sure, they would be making a mistake. My point is that what might seem like an obvious analytic conclusion to you might be a mistake, given that humans are fallible. And then if we are bringing in possibilities like brains in vats - where perhaps some species is triggering you brain to fool it - you might be making mistakes but not realizing it based on the qualia they are stimulating you to feel or which jazz up your brain making it more likely to make mistakes that are not recognized as mistakes.

[popeye1945]

The tase of the pie.

[PeteOlcott]

The reason that I focus on the analytic side is that on the empirical side the closest
that we can get to actual knowledge is a preliminary estimate. If our own memories
are fake then our own memories of are own mother are false.

So, again, to be clear: you agree that you do not consider scientific conclusions, models, etc., as knowledge. IOW the current consensus in biology, physics and so on should not be considered knowledge or at least you do not consider it knowledge.

Any expressions of language requiring interpretation are excluded from
knowledge. If someone mistakes an unmarried male for someone that
graduated from a four year college then they failed to pay attention
to the globally unique identifier (GUID) index to the term "bachelor".

Sure, they would be making a mistake. My point is that what might seem like an obvious analytic conclusion to you might be a mistake, given that humans are fallible. And then if we are bringing in possibilities like brains in vats - where perhaps some species is triggering you brain to fool it - you might be making mistakes but not realizing it based on the qualia they are stimulating you to feel or which jazz up your brain making it more likely to make mistakes that are not recognized as mistakes.

At any moment all of science could be replaced by supernatural power, this is not
impossible, thus empirical "knowledge" is at best a preliminary estimate of knowledge.

It may turn out to be that curing cancer is best done by yelling at it to go away and
never come back. When a cat scan proves that this worked then this method can be
trusted.

Analytic knowledge is a series of mutually interlocking tautologies this makes it infallible.
You may falsely believe that there is a cat in your living room right now, you cannot falsely
believe that cats are animals, because this is an axiom stipulated to be true.

[Iwannaplato]

At any moment all of science could be replaced by supernatural power, this is not
impossible, thus empirical "knowledge" is at best a preliminary estimate of knowledge.

So, here's a question then. Is the above an analytic conclusion? If yes, how? If not, should it be considered knowledge?
I suppose you could argue that knowledge must be 100%, though this is a very idiosyncratic conclusion. But regardless one must then know that science is not 100% accurate and that seems to me to be a synthetic conclusion.

Synthetic truths are true both because of what they mean and because of the way the world is, whereas analytic truths are true in virtue of meaning alone.

It may turn out to be that curing cancer is best done by yelling at it to go away and
never come back. When a cat scan proves that this worked then this method can be
trusted.

Well that wouldn't contradict any current science, however shocking it might be to scientists and medical personell. But I get the idea.

Analytic knowledge is a series of mutually interlocking tautologies this makes it infallible.
You may falsely believe that there is a cat in your living room right now, you cannot falsely
believe that cats are animals, because this is an axiom stipulated to be true.

I mean, I agree in this moment, but again, while you are working with your analytic knowledge (and the limited realm of conclusions it offers) you may think you understand a category and not understand it. Again, especially if your brain is in a vat and they are slipping you subtle drugs.
We are fallible, regardless. I might only be agreeing because in fact I am a brain in a vat confused by the drugs they are giving me, while outside the vat cats are japanese plastic alien plant life.

[PeteOlcott]

I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though

Only by stipulating relations between finite strings do finite strings acquire semantic meaning otherwise they remain meaningless. All of these stipulated relations are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true. This makes these finite strings tautologies that we know must be true.

Every finite string that is deduced from the above finite strings is also justifiably known to be true.
The above seems to be the complete epistemic justification of analytical truth.