TK may be on to something, but NTK drives along a dangerous path IMHO
Knowledge can be contextually valid, that is fully integrated into a knowledge base without contradiction, and if it is, in the absence of contradictory evidence, can be certain knowledge. In fact, I think certain knowledge is somewhat redundant. For if it is found, in the future, to be false, then it wasn't knowledge. Example, the heliocentric model. The Earth centered model was not knowledge.
Take the statement noncontradiction of an identity makes it real. Do you agree with it?
If so, can I use these words instead to illustrate the meaning of that statement?
A "definition" [Identity arrived at without evidence] is only "true" [real] if it doesn't contradict what it means to exist [noncontradiction].
If you agree with my illustration, then you have to see that a definition is not an identity until you have evidence.
So using a definition to prove something is "not logical" (to borrow a phrase from Spock)
I cannot get any philosopher to nail down what they are talking about. I ask for a definition, I get a novel. I am trying to make it simple, but that offended you.
From your reply, I take it you do not agree with the statement "noncontradiction of an identity makes it real". What statement would reflect the idea of "making something real and that it exists in the logical world"?
I take it Identity is logically possible, but not real (does not exist). Or sometimes Identity exists and sometimes Identity doesn't exist, but is possible. Identity (when it exists) requires evidence, but when it is only possible (when logically arrived at) it doesn't exist.
So, "Identity arrived at without evidence" is ridiculous. Can it also be defined as possible or existing?
"noncontradiction alone does not confer existence"
Again I ask for a one or two sentence statement that conveys the entire idea of "making something real and that it exists in the logical world"?
No, Cane, you cannot accept the simple assertions that we are giving you. When we expand on them, you complain that we are writing novels. Here it is one last time, as brief as I can make it. I hope it squeezes thru the aperture available.
Logical contradiction proves impossibility of existence, no evidence required. Period. How could it possibly be otherwise in a comprehensible universe?
Logical noncontradiction is necessary, but not sufficient, to prove existence. Evidence is required to prove existence. Something that is logically consistent may or may not exist, but you have no reason to believe that it does until you find evidence.
As an example, fictional characters may be logically consistent, but they are not real.
As another example, extraterrestrials certainly could exist, and given the fact that we exist, they almost certainly do, but until we find evidence of them, the jury is out.
As a further example, logically inconsistent things like gods cannot exist. It isn't surprising that there isn't any evidence for them, since they are logically impossible. If you think you've found evidence for a god, you need to look for a better explanation, because it's not possible. Of course, it just so happens that we've always found a better explanation than gods throughout human history. Again, no surprise.
Stop confusing yourself by conflating real with true, and possible with extant. And stop insisting on further explanation for things that have already been explained. And look up the definition of things, rather than relying on your own home-brewed ones. Your definition of "belief" for example is at odds with Webster and common usage. And definitely look up the definition of "necessary" and "sufficient", since your misunderstandings seem to hinge primarily on a confusion regarding those two.