[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I wasnt clear. The defect is simply that if you claim that it is impossible to justify knowledge through induction, which I am guessing all the 'no' answer people are doing then they are commited to saying that we know almost nothing. They dont know that Bush is president, they don't know that that the earth isnt resting on a turtles back, they dont know that dinosaurs existed, or JFK existed, etc. If you define knowledge in that sort of cartesian (must be proven deductively to be true) sense then you are going to know almost nill. Even when you think you have proven something deductively doubts will still creep in about error of inference or memory and with them inductive reasoning creeps in. Induction is not something that can be dismissed if we want to have knowledge beyond things like I am having a monitor like sensation right now, or the a priori necessary truths that were mentioned earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you basically agree with the skeptics but wish to you the word knowledge to means something weaker and attainable. Us skeptics have no problem with that but we would like our word back.

I think what you say about deduction isn't quite correct. Skeptics are saying there is a problem in knowing anything about the world even in principle. If there was in principle a method for gaining knowledge then the fact that you might make a mistake when putting it into practice is a very minor issue.

chez