In Defense of Knowledge

We need to realize that we can know things before we are 100% certain of those things. I’ve never been to London, England so I’m not 100% certain it exists, yet I still know it exists, from others accounts of visits. I have also had many experiences where I know something without knowing why. In these cases I just know the fact is true; I’m fully confident of its validity, but I can’t prove it. There are also times when we try to refute the obvious. We should trust the obvious until we prove it wrong. We shouldn’t trust something less obvious when we aren’t certain of it. We can’t say it’s intelligent to question everything; we need to reject false ideas while accepting true ones; that’s pursuit of knowledge. The skeptic says humans make mistakes, but you can’t say something is wrong unless you know something is right. For something to be wrong there must be a correct answer. The skeptic also says to question everything, yet if you asked a skeptic to sit down for a discussion, the skeptic will almost always go ahead and sit down. In this case the skeptic doesn’t question whether the chair will hold him or her, the skeptic just trusts that the chair will support his or her weight. The same is true with doors; a skeptic trusts that when they turn the handle the door will open. Clearly we can’t question everything; that would be impractical as we couldn’t go anywhere, even throughout our houses, without questioning if the path will support us. Skepticism is self-refuting; you cannot claim that, “You can’t know anything”, without knowing something. This is itself a knowledge claim. Although some skepticism is healthy to allow discernment, total skepticism is not a “good” worldview to hold.