Peter Unger argues that all knowledge requires certainty. Furthermore, since he insists that nothing can be known with certainty, Unger concludes that “no one ever knows that it is so” (Unger, 42). This is Unger's argument:1. “If someone knows that something is so, then it is natural for him to be absolutely certain that it is so” (42).2. “It is never acceptable for anyone to be absolutely certain that something is so” (43).3. Therefore, “no one ever knows that something is like this” (43). In short, no one can know anything. As “anything” makes explicit, Unger suggests that we cannot have knowledge of our own existence, external objects, past or present experiences, or even the fact that 1+1=2. He also insists that knowing anything with certainty is inherently dogmatic. Being certain implies a negative attitude; this implies that nothing (new information, evidence, or experience) “will be seriously considered relevant to a possible change in a person's thinking on the matter” (44). Unger defines this as the attitude of certainty. This is why it is not correct “for anyone to be absolutely certain.” I agree with Unger and concede that (2) is correct. However, Unger's rejection of the attitude of certainty leads to the rejection of all knowledge. This is where Unger is wrong. I intend to argue that premise (1) is dubious and that knowledge requires true and justified belief, but never certainty itself. Before continuing, I need to clarify Unger's notion of certainty. Until now, I have used Unger's notion of certainty (noted in italics) without explanation. Certain is an absolute adjective analogous to the notion of apartment. An absolute adjective is or is not. A painting, for example, is flat if there is no change in gradient...... middle of paper...... first finger premise).2. Knowledge is belief justified with confidence.3. Being confident, but not certain, allows one to change one's opinion/belief in the face of new information and experiences (avoiding Unger's attitude of certainty).4. Knowing confidently, but being receptive to new information is not dogmatic.5. People can know things with confidence without being dogmatic.6. Therefore, people can rightly and confidently know that certain things are so. The above argument allows us to know things, but in a non-dogmatic way. Although knowing with confidence (but not with certainty) can be considered a weak feeling of knowledge, it avoids the skeptical conclusion while avoiding Unger's attitude of certainty. With the ability to amend and modify justified beliefs (knowledge), certainty is inherently absent from this notion of knowledge..