Because to infer means to conclude knowledge from evidence, and proving means to show something is true by using evidence. They are essentially synonyms.
There are many cases of knowledge that aren’t about X is true. When it comes to the knowledge required to tie the shoelaces of a shoe there isn’t a single thing that has to be shown to be true by evidence.
Basically you lack skepticism about the issue that you think you know what knowledge is about.
There are many cases of knowledge that aren’t about X is true. When it comes to the knowledge required to tie the shoelaces of a shoe there isn’t a single thing that has to be shown to be true by evidence.
There are multiple things that must be true by evidence to tie shoelaces successfully, including:
One’s shoes are untied.
Having untied shoes generally decreases utility.
Performing a series of muscle movements that is commonly known as “tying your shoes” typically results in one’s shoelaces being tied.
You are make assumptions that are strong for claiming to be a skeptic.
To go through them:
1) Tied shoelaces also allow you to tie them again. Untiedness is no requirement for tying.
2) If you are in a social environment where untied shoes are really cool then tying them might decrease your utility. At the same time tying them still makes them tied.
3) It’s quite possible to tie your shoes through muscles movements that are not commonly used for tying your shoes.
You are make assumptions that are strong for claiming to be a skeptic.
To go through them: 1) Tied shoelaces also allow you to tie them again. Untiedness is no requirement for tying. 2) If you are in a social environment where untied shoes are really cool then tying them might decrease your utility. At the same time tying them still makes them tied.
Okay, I really shouldn’t have stated those specifics. Instead, in order to tie shoe-laces successfully, all one really needs to know is that performing a series of actions that are commonly known as “tying your shoes” typically results in one’s shoelaces being tied.
3) It’s quite possible to tie your shoes through muscles movements that are not commonly used for tying your shoes.
I never said that the muscle movement were common, just that they typically resulted in tied shoes.
That said, I’m not really sure how this is relevant. Could you explain?
Because to infer means to conclude knowledge from evidence, and proving means to show something is true by using evidence. They are essentially synonyms.
There are many cases of knowledge that aren’t about X is true. When it comes to the knowledge required to tie the shoelaces of a shoe there isn’t a single thing that has to be shown to be true by evidence.
Basically you lack skepticism about the issue that you think you know what knowledge is about.
There are multiple things that must be true by evidence to tie shoelaces successfully, including:
One’s shoes are untied.
Having untied shoes generally decreases utility.
Performing a series of muscle movements that is commonly known as “tying your shoes” typically results in one’s shoelaces being tied.
Edit: fixed grammar.
You are make assumptions that are strong for claiming to be a skeptic.
To go through them: 1) Tied shoelaces also allow you to tie them again. Untiedness is no requirement for tying. 2) If you are in a social environment where untied shoes are really cool then tying them might decrease your utility. At the same time tying them still makes them tied. 3) It’s quite possible to tie your shoes through muscles movements that are not commonly used for tying your shoes.
Okay, I really shouldn’t have stated those specifics. Instead, in order to tie shoe-laces successfully, all one really needs to know is that performing a series of actions that are commonly known as “tying your shoes” typically results in one’s shoelaces being tied.
I never said that the muscle movement were common, just that they typically resulted in tied shoes.
That said, I’m not really sure how this is relevant. Could you explain?