Evidence And Proof

There is no knowledge apart from absolute certainty, for if there is even the possibility of an idea being wrong, it is not known to be true.  Almost anyone will act as if this is true when something they do not like ot do not want to be true is in focus, but, change the topic, and ideas that make them comfortable are almost never evaluated in the same way except by consistent rationalists.  Absolute certainty is in every case necessary to truly know if something is an impossibility, an unproven possibility, or a provable aspect of reality.  Evidence that seems to point to some particular idea being true without there actually being an airtight logical and conceptual proof for that idea being correct can only justify belief that there is evidence and that it points in a particular direction.

Now, it is absolutely certain that perceptions exist, not that it is common for this to be recognized.  There is no ambiguity whatsoever about whether perceptions and the evidences contained therein really exist; there is only a logical disconnect between the possible existence of specific external, physical events, other minds, and morality (and other such things) and perceptions regarding these things.  All fallible evidences--evidences which cannot prove that something is actually true as opposed to seemingly true--are where ambiguity truly is.  Ironically, there is no way to know even this apart from absolute certainty about the conceptual/epistemologically distinction between evidence and proof, yet absolute certainty is regularly denied in all cases.

Without the absolute certainty of at least some things, there would be no way to even prove to oneself that evidence is distinct from proof, that some things (many things) cannot be proven, and that it is irrational to believe in anything short of proof instead of just evidence, which is inevitably incomplete and possibly a kind of illusion.  It would otherwise be impossible to know that evidence which falls short of a logical proof (which usually involves pure logicality and thus sidesteps the need for evidence anyway) leaves any belief that something is true just because it has some support unjustified.  Without proof, one has gone beyond evidence to a non sequitur conclusion--one that does not follow from its conceptual premises.

The person who denies absolute certainty is valid at least with regard to logical axioms and one's own existence as a consciousness has rejected the only self-verifying truths, all while leaning on the pathetic idea that one can prove that nothing can be proven.  If they could prove such a thing, they would have actually proven that they are wrong in full!  There is no way for an irrationalist to sidestep this objective fact.  If nothing is knowable, this does not free someone to have philosophically legitimate beliefs in anything, including the belief that nothing is knowable.  Thankfully, the truth is not that everyone must choose between irrational beliefs and a self-refuting type of skepticism.  The truth is that only self-verifying truths and what necessarily follows from things can be known.