In my own opinion, to really “know” something means to have knowledge regarding a particular thing/ issue. We “know” things when we are less or more assured that it is true depending on the proof of our thoughts or senses processes. For instance, On the other hand, knowledge is an assumption with the dogma of truth founded on either through experience or reasoning, or both. For example, if I say I know the city, it means that I understand the city well.
Yes, true and certain knowledge is possible. First, to qualify knowledge as being true and certain, it must be entirely independent, unconditional, permanent, and perfectly true and certain. Also, the knowledge must be absolutely reliable, perfectly clear, and self-evident. We recognize true and certain knowledge by comprehending its nature and belief. Also, through interrogation of knowledge in determining its credibility can assist in recognizing true and certain knowledge. However, on many occasions, I have always doubted if some individuals really know about the things they talk about. For example, when a person says, "I know football," and yet when you observe him play football, he doesn't seem to be conversant with the rules of the game. This justifies my doubts that he only thinks to "know" football, but in the real sense, he does not. The evidence well justifies doubts. It's absolutely not possible to have a person who does not know anything. This is because, even when it seems that we know nothing, it’s true that we at least know ourselves, ‘I am.’ Our knowledge ‘I am’ implies that we know something regarding ourselves, which is entirely independent, unchanging, and permanent. Even an insane person knows where he sleeps during the night; he knows how to eat when hungry; he can differentiate night and day. Therefore, in my opinion, it will be wrong to say that there is somebody who knows nothing at all.
In my own understanding of skepticism, it’s all about doubts, which lead to one requesting for prove to clear the doubts. Skeptics don't believe in having real knowledge. However, it is possible to have real knowledge. This can be achieved by supporting your knowledge with facts to prove that your knowledge is practical. Modern skeptics request for scientific methods as a means of establishing the truth. If an assertion is backed up by authentic scientific studies or facts, and respectable scientists support it, then it's more believed and accepted than just a claim that is backed up by quacks who exercise pseudo-science. However, some skeptics will still want to challenge the scientific assertions are interim and subject to be tested.
Today's world is full of political accusations full of "fake news" or simply lies just to humiliate the opposing side. Despite the alternative facts and the fake news, one can discern the truth of the matter from falsity. It can be achieved by not accepting any moral discernment at face value. An individual ought to ponder ethical questioning as a form of court proceedings, whereby for claims to be accepted, there must be evidence to support. The prove must not always provide certain knowledge or be conclusive, but must give sufficient substantive reasons to reach a verdict that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in cases of such political "alternative facts" and "fake news," one will require to think critically about them, and resist the force just to welcome them at face value. Drawing back from the reasons, the affected need to consider his acquaintance's assertions and his rationale for making them.
In my opinion or understanding, radical skepticism concludes that it’s impossible to have knowledge about something. Radical skeptics believe that doubt prevails as to the precision of each belief and that truth is never justified. Radical skepticism can be a superlative kind of self-reflection, which declines to acknowledge that an individual knows anything. Also, it can be a type of circumspection whereby an individual refuses to trust any knowledge from outside that doesn't meet specific laid down standards. David Hume’s claimed that though true knowledge is impossible, the knowledge we can have is sufficient for us to discard radical skepticism. As a true skeptic, I can respond to the claim by refuting it. This is because, while radical skepticism is logically impeccable, it is not possible psychologically, and there is a component of fatuous insincerity in the philosophy that prevents to embrace it. Also, another way of responding to Hume's claim is by requesting for prove/ facts regarding the claim. It’s a form of indirect refusing the claim on the basis that evidence has to be provided. In the actual sense, true knowledge is possible. Therefore, as a skeptic, it’s important to request for facts to prove that true knowledge is not possible. Also, this will prove that the knowledge we possess can be sufficient for us to discard radical skepticism, which denotes that it’s impossible for us to have knowledge about something.
