> claim to know something, like knowing 2 + 3 = 5, that, in fact, they do not know As I keep saying, I specifically do not claim to know it "like knowing 2+3=5

> claim to know something, like knowing 2 + 3 = 5, that, in fact, they do not know As I keep saying, I specifically do not claim to know it "like knowing 2+3=5". I am "agnostic" in that respect (by my definition). Your mistake is thinking that that is the only form of knowledge that warrants the word "knowing". The vast majority of the things I know I do not know in that way. I know that when I go downstairs and open the door there will not be an aggresive, 12 foot spider waiting for me. On the basis of this knowledge I do not consider arming myself with a baseball bat or using another exit. I do however have to admit that I cannot absolutely exclude the possibility in the way I can exclude the possibility of 2+3 being 6. If I restricted myself to the form of knowledge you are requiring I would only know some maths, that I exist and certain specifics of the world I can see right at this moment. Fortunately I don't need to. Humans have powerful ways of deriving knowledge that is not of that nature, but is nonetheless knowledge. All of natural science, for example. I hope this makes it clear. I explicitly do not claim the specific kind of knowledge you are saying I claim (that is a straw man). I do however claim knowledge of the same sort as most of the things I know, such as that all massive bodies attract one another. The kind of knowledge that admits the logical possibility of being demonstrated wrong at some point, but which is nonetheless strong, evidentially supported knowledge.