In this paper I will argue that the author's argument that knowledge does not exist is self-defeating and contradictory. The basis of his requirements of knowledge are tainted with his own learned experiences. I will also argue that while it is impossible to say that we know anything with one hundred percent certainty, knowledge does exist.
In the article Negative Skepticism, by Oliver A. Johnson, the author argues that knowledge does not exist and that there is no true knowledge. He explains that the cognitivist (a person who believes in knowledge) has yet to offer up any argument that will satisfy his two requirements of knowledge, which are, "what they assert must be true" and "their truth must entail the truth of the conclusion in whose support they are offered." (Johnson, 1978) He also states that the reasons the cognitivist presents must also fulfill the terms that "we know them to be true" and "we know that they entail the conclusion we derive from them." (Johnson, 1978).
Johnson seems very convinced that knowledge does not exist based strictly on his own requirements of what he feels knowledge is. This implies the preconceived notion that he "knows" what knowledge is, or at least should, be. If there is no such thing as knowledge, then how can he be so sure that there is no such thing as knowledge? By making this statement, Johnson is contending that he knows something for fact- that knowledge does not exist. His whole argument is based on a contradiction and is self-defeating. It is almost pointless to make further arguments against it based on this .
In conclusion, Johnson defeats himself in this argument right off the bat. It is based on a self defeating principle and is therefore invalid. I disagree with Johnson's view on the existence of knowledge. In my opinion, knowledge is a series of learned teachings and experiences and allows us to, with a fair amount of accuracy, predict what will happen in certain situations.