This house believes that "Knowledge is impossible"

My stand is that knowledge is possible. Before I begin my argumentation: Knowledge shall be defined by the traditional "justified true belief" analysis of knowledge, that is an agent knows a proposition only if the agent holds a belief in the proposition that is justified, and that the proposition turns out to be true. For simplification matters, since we are assuming the truth of justified true belief, let us not drag in the matter of Gettier Cases. Belief is defined as having a propositional attitude that is true, such that S believes that P, only if S thinks that P holds a true truth-functional value I will present arguments that attempt to prove that knowledge can be gained through a transcendental idealistic manner as Kant proposes, before moving on to critiquing the most common form of argumentation against the possibility or knowledge (henceforth referred to as skepticism for conciseness), known as the "deception argument" All references used are presented in APA format at the back In order for knowledge to be possible, the criterion of knowledge must be possible to be achieved. S knows P ONLY IF: (i) S believes in P This is possible, because S, an agent, is inherently capable of rational thought, and therefore as he is capable of thinking, he is able to think that something is true, making him able to believe something is true. (ii) S is justified in believing that P is true. This is possible, as S lives in a plane of reality, from which justification can arise. I for example, can form a belief that the sky is blue, my justification of which is that I saw that sky above my head is blue, and this sky exists in the reality plane I live in. If this reality plane does not exist, I will not sense anything, but as I do sense something, like the computer in front of me, this reality plane exist, and with it comes an infinite amount of sources to justify my beliefs. (iii) P is true Truth is just something arbitrarily predicated upon a proposition, with "true" predicated upon propositions that describe something that exists in the reality plane. For example, the proposition "The sky is blue", describes the sky of Earth as having the color blue, which is true, as the sky of Earth in the reality plane does have a color of blue in the reality plane. By this logic, if a reality plane exists, that reality plane would be able to make at least one proposition true, that is "there is a reality plane". Truth, and therefore now knowledge is possible, as I have argued how each necessary and sufficient condition of knowledge can be fulfilled One counter-argument that I might face is the "deception argument" It argues that all that we experience are entailed by deceptive sources, making all our beliefs deceptive, and with no way to pull out of this deception, it is therefore impossible to form true beliefs or satisfy concurrently criterions (ii) and (iii), therefore making knowledge impossible. For example, I might just be a brain floating in a vat of chemicals on Alpha-Centauri, with my brain being stimulated electrically to believe that I am on Earth, typing debating fervently against a stranger on Epistemology. All my beliefs are about my reality on Earth, and as they are virtual, all my beliefs are false, and as there is no way for me to know whether or not I am real or just a brain in a vat (much like as if I am in a dream) , I, therefore, cannot know anything. My counter-argument is that even if it is impossible to form any propositions about my reality, or about the brain in a vat reality in separate or in conjunction, I can still form true beliefs about this in exclusive disjunction. (where either P and Q hold opposite true value) As proved earlier that I can form beliefs, I can, therefore, form this belief: "Either I am a brain in a vat XOR I am a real person" My justification for this is that I am experiencing some form of reality through my senses This proposition is always true since I can experience the reality to me, I must be a real person, but if this isn"t the case, the fact that I am still experiencing something means that my mind must be artificially stimulated making the former true. And if I was not a brain in a vat, and as I am experiencing reality through my senses, I must be a real person. I cannot be both a real person and a brain in the vat at the same time as they are contradictory, and it is also impossible to not be either a brain in a vat or a real person, as I am experiencing something. Therefore, I can form a belief that "I am a brain in the vat XOR I am a real person", I can justify that belief by saying that I can perceive some form of reality, and "I am a brain in the vat XOR I am a real person" is always true, and therefore, it is at least possible for me to know that "I am a brain in the vat XOR I am a real person" and therefore, knowledge is possible. References (up to this point): Putnam, H. (n.d.). Brains in a vat. Reason, Truth and History, 1-21. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625398.003 Chapter Five. Humean Skepticism. (n.d.). Kant and Skepticism. doi:10.1515/9781400824403.21 Stroll, A. (n.d.). Scepticism And The Problem Of The Criterion. Sceptics, Millenarians and Jews, 1-14. doi:10.1163/9789004246669_002