Thread:Aptos/@comment-27847292-20160325014116/@comment-27304481-20160326052554

No, that is fallibilistic logic. It sais if there is justification, and it is true, and you believe it, then you know it. I am saying that we jsut dont know. Because I don't believe it, and have the same evidence as justification, it is clearly not proven.

Furthermore, that isnt even my definition for that. That is he official definition. And some say even that is too inclusive.

Personally, It doesnt have to be 99.9999% proven. Not even 95% proven. But if there are logical, sensible otherwise solutions, then it isn't legitimate, universally.

Since we have the opposing justified belief using the same evidence, both of us technically have a fallible level of "knowing" that we are right, as until one side is proven true or not true, then you fallibilistically "know" they have romantic feelings, and I the same but opposite. So, technically, we are both right.

So until there is confirmation, that is the result. Either A) There are logical reasons for either side, so there is perfectly reasonable and plausible alternatives on either side, so neither can use circumstantial evidence and we are both wrong. Or B) we are both fallibilistically knowing, both right from our own perspectives, with the truth unable to be recieved until agreeable confirmation chooses a side.

That is logic. That is the logical world we live in, and that is logic in general.