What does it mean to know something is true? - Why is it necessary to differentiate between what you know and do or can not know? - When do you doubt what you thought you sincerely knew? This critical essay of epistemology focuses on skepticism, and why philosophers such as John Hospers challenge against this mindset; hence in his intellectual piece "Argument against Skepticism." Skepticism questions ones knowledge in all realms in which one ordinary thinks knowledge is probable. In this dissertation I wish to explicate Hospers' perception, and to critically appraise Hospers' argument.
             Hospers indicates three sequential conditions for the propositional sense of knowledge, also he differentiates between the strong and weak senses of the word know. First is that the preposition must be true, because one can not claim to know a preposition if the preposition is not true, "knowing p is knowing that p is true" (Hospers). Second is that one must truly believe that the preposition is true, because one can not claim to know a preposition without believing it to be true. Third and most importantly is that one must have evidence or a reason for believing a preposition to be true, rather than an educated guess. Hospers states that one does not have knowledge if one believes a proposition to be true and it just so happens to be true, but one does not have the adequate evidence to back up their belief. This evidence requirement is the focal point of the skepticism dilemma in question. "How much evidence must there be? ...when could the accumulation of evidence end?" (Hospers)
             The weak sense of 'know' means that one has adequate evidence and a good basis upon a belief. Hospers alleges that ordinarily, everyday people use the expression to 'know' in the weak sense. Hospers gives examples resembling; if I say that "I know that professor Brunning is present today" I ca...