This house believes that "Knowledge is impossible"

Firstly, my refutations: I do not see how this is linked to knowledge or the lack of such. While I do agree that there is a problem with induction, induction is not assumed or required in knowledge. This first argument does not disprove the possibility of knowledge. Yes, probability is an estimate, but I do not see what the conditions of Asian life has to do with probability, nor do I see what the conditions of Asian life has to do with the possibility of knowledge My opponent here is treating knowledge as truth. Knowledge is not the same thing as truth. Knowledge in this debate as agreed is justified true belief, the definition of knowledge that is most widely accepted. A diagram of roads relates to the actual roads, and if the diagram of roads represents accurately the roads, then it is true, that is, by showing you a diagram of roads, you have an accurate idea what the roads are like. I in fact do not even need to visualize the actual roads. As long as I have a justified belief of the diagram, and that diagram is an accurate representation of the roads, then I have a knowledge, not of the actual roads, but of the diagram. That is still a knowledge. As I proved in my previous argument surrounding time and space, not all knowledge is limited to a human"s sensory capabilities. You might argue even successfully that empirical knowledge (knowledge gained through sense-experience) is impossible, but it will be much harder to refute the a priori knowledge (knowledge that is innate) that I propose exists. My opponent digresses often and rarely answers to the motion. May I request my opponent to clarify just how the induction problem factors into the impossibility of knowledge, and just how the conditions of Asian life, probability, and Drake"s equation (an equation answering to why there might not be aliens), make knowledge impossible? Without these clarifications, I am afraid your arguments are a loosely connected bunch of floating irrelevant sweeping statements at best. My first argument is to try and prove that we always have a knowledge of our existence. Consider for a moment that we are in constant deception, and that whatever we sense or think are false. Perhaps, in Descartes" words, we are in the constant deception of an evil genius whose sole purpose is to falsify all of our beliefs, such that justified true belief and therefore knowledge can never be achieved. However, in order for the evil genius to deceive me, I must be there in the first place. If I do not exist, the evil genius has nothing to deceive. My existence is irrefutable if I possess the rational ability to form beliefs, which as proved earlier I can. In other words, since my existence is always true given that I can think, and given that I can form beliefs and use the above line of thought to justify this belief, I can always know that I exist, regardless of whether my existence takes the form of a real person, a brain in the vat, or a subject under the evil genius"s deception. This knowledge is irrefutable, making knowledge therefore possible. My next argument will focus on tautologies. Since there seems to be no argument that we are all capable of belief, and that we are all capable of justification, my major argumentation goes into proving that there are truths. Most skeptic arguments argue that we are in constant deception and therefore whatever we are in touch with can never be true. A simple refutation to this is logical tautologies. Certain logical statements are always true, as the individual propositions that they involve are linked in such a way that regardless of the individual truth values of the individual propositions, the logical statement as a whole is still true. For example: (P => (Q =>P)) is always true, regardless of the truth value of P and Q not(P && not(P)) is also always true, regardless of the truth value of P. ( && is logical AND) ( => is logical material implication) (P and Q are any proposition that bears a truth value) From this truths, we can then form justified beliefs of these truths, creating knowledge of these statements that are always true. This makes knowledge possible. A possible refutation of the above is that truth is impossible, or some other form of refutation of the law of excluded middle, or some form of refutation of logic. My counter argument is that since I exist, in order to accommodate my existence, there must be some form of a reality plane. All objects in this reality plane can therefore be related to propositions, making truth possible, and therefore making knowledge possible ____________________________________________________________________________ TLDR of this post: My opponent"s argument falls as it does not answer to the motion My opponent"s argument also falls as truths are just representations of things in the reality plane Even if I am constantly deceived to have false beliefs, the fact that I exist cannot be refuted, as I need to exist in order to be subject to deception. From this irrefutable truth and given that I can form beliefs which I can justify, I can at least have knowledge that I exist, whatever form "I" might take, making knowledge possible Certain truths are always true as they are logical tautologies, making knowledge possible as I can, as proved earlier form justified beliefs. ____________________________________________________________________________ Summary of all my arguments: I am a rational being, and therefore I can form beliefs, and as I can sense reality, I can form propositions based on this reality to justify my beliefs, and since there is this reality, there are certain propositions which are accurate descriptions of this reality, making knowledge possible by the definition of justified true belief that we agreed on in this debate Even if I am subjected to constant deception, for example even if I am a brain in a vat on Alpha Centauri, I will still be able to form beliefs and justify them as the brain is still rational. The problem is truth. However, there are certain truths which as a brain in a vat I can still form, such as "I am a real person XOR I am a brain in a vat". This is always true, as I cannot be both a brain in a vat and a real person at the same time (that is contradictory), and I cannot be neither of them, because if I am neither of them, I would have no sensory input, but as I do have sensory input, I cannot be neither of them. I can form a true belief on this proposition. I can justify this belief with the above line of thought, giving me a justified true belief, which is knowledge, therefore making knowledge possible. I have sensory input such as the moving of cars and the moving of the clock hands. I can also understand these sensory input, as I know that the car is moving away from me and that the time is passing as the clock hands move. The ability to comprehend these sensory input requires innate knowledge of time and space, and these knowledge shows that knowledge is possible. Even if I am subject to constant deception, such as in the case that an evil genius is making all my beliefs false, I must exist, if not the evil genius will have nothing to deceive. My existence is always true, and I can form a belief on it as I am a rational being. Furthermore, using the above line of thought I can justify my belief in my existence, therefore giving me a justified true belief which is knowledge, making knowledge possible. There are certain logical tautologies that are always true no matter what. I as a rational being can form beliefs on them, justify them with an understanding of logic and therefore giving me justified true belief, which is as we agreed in this debate knowledge, making knowledge therefore possible. ____________________________________________________________________________ Complete list of references in APA: 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