I'm more answering the question "How can we know anything about reality"?  Whatever method is used to attempt to ascertain information about the "external world" has to assume something in order for the method to work.  Take, for example, empiricism.  This methods posits that knowledge about reality can be gained, or, at least, we can get close to knowledge, by the use of our senses.  But this only works if we assume our senses can be trusted, because you can't really prove empiricism with more empiricism.  This also, I think, clarifies what I mean by proof:  proof is merely any method one takes in order to attain knowledge about the external world, whether it be proof by sense data, or proof by, say, flipping a coin (heads=true, tales=false).  In both methods, there is "proof"; but something needs to be assumed in both cases for it to work (you couldn't flip a coin to verify flipping a coin proves anything; you have to assume it does first).

About proving that nothing can be proven; I mean nothing can be proven about the "external world"; my critique of methods of proof is simply a logical follow-through on them.  Logic is fine, for me (unless, of course, the law of non-contradiction is an assumption, too).

If that makes any sense, I would be amazed.

You might enjoy reading some Descarte or some Hume. Regardless, logic also fails in your scheme if it is based on false premises. How would you know when a jugdgment is based on false premises?

A more serious question then is: what do you mean by "nothing can be proven about the external world", i.e, is there some other world besides the external world and if so, what is it?

What I mean  by saying "external world" is any proposition about reality.

What I mean by "nothing can be proven" is that there is no method for gaining knowledge that would avoid depending on knowledge in the first place (or rather, looking for a method of truth already begs the question as to whether you can know a method will give you truth). Hope that's clear... knowledge is the only certain beginning of epistemology... merely because I can't analytically go any farther back.

Really, what I just said is the answer to your question as to "how do I know this isn't based on a false premise". I'm merely recognizing that by definition, knowledge will already be necessary to even posit a method of truth (it's not a premise about reality...it's the definition of words). It is a confession that any belief is already dependant on knowledge.

I'm not sure I follow you. What "knowledge" is it first necessary to possess in order to be able to gain more knowledge? What do you mean by "a method of truth"? Are there different methods of truth?

I ask these questions because you've said that nothing can be proven about the external world. You've avoided saying anything about any other type of world. As far as I can tell you don't believe anything can be proven. Is that correct?

3% of the human population are homos (pleas correct me if I am wrong). I don’t see that as a threat…

Suddenly, all of those PS3 is doomed threads don't seem so bad!

By method of truth I mean any system used to gain certain knowledge (as opposed to uncertain knowledge) about the "external world"  (I'll clarify what I mean by that in a moment).  For example, empiricism and rationalism are such systems.  They need "knowledge" at first to actually work, though.  Empiricism only works if you assume your senses can be trusted. That assumption is the knowledge I'm referring to, something which empiricism cannot provide (because that would be circular).  There definitely are many methods (infinite methods, I suppose) of truth; it's just whatever one chooses to say gives knowledge (like the flipping-a-coin example I mentioned earlier), but they all have to assume something in order to work; themselves, because the systems can't rpove themselves  (unless they're assumed to be true already, but that defeats the point here).

By the "external world" I mean whatever exists.  Any other "world" (should there be others, I mean) or reality or universe would fall under the catagory of external world, because they exist.  Logic and meaning aren't that type of thing to exist, so they are fine to use.   It is to the external world are methods of truth applied; therefore, nothing can be certainly known (that is, nothing cannot be first assumed) about the external world.  That's why I feel I can say "nothing can be proved", because I'm only referring to the external world.  I can prove that methods of truth rely on assumption to operate because it's a question of meaning, not existence.

O.K., well, you say:

1) A method of truth is a system used to gain certain knowledge.

2) Nothing can be known for certain about reality.

Since you you don't mention anything other than "reality" (or the external world, i.e., things that exist) I'm left to believe that is the entirety of your argument. If you're using logic then what what can you deduce or infer from your first two statements?

One might be "No method of truth can gain certain knowledge about reality." Would that be a fair assessment of your beliefs?

That's sounds about right.  And by certain knowledge, I mean knowledge free of assumption.

Mind you, I'm not condemning assumption.  I have no problem with asuuming something about reality; I just think I recognize that all statments about reality are assumptions.

I feel like I'm walking into a trap :p

                                                       Okami

                                        To lavish praise upon this title,

    the assumption of a common plateau between title and player must be made;

                                     I won't open my unworthy mouth

I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the conversation.