exactly

Fair enough, I was just curious if you had something in mind for the difference.

Confusion

You say "OMFG I have no idea what you are talking about" and yet you don't tell me if my interpretation DIRECTLY ABOVE THAT is correct and (if not) where I am wrong and in what way. 

   Right, because I can’t understand you. I’m sorry. The interpretations you are giving are apart of what you are saying. Thus apart of what I’m having great difficulty understanding.

   I could painstakingly go through all my difficulties with what you said and give you the possibilities running through my mind of what you meant and then give a response to every single one. But, seeing that much of our terminology apparently isn’t understood between us I’m not sure if it would make it clearer or just make it worse. I would rather just start over and make up new terms somehow step by step but it seems we have a different subject now anyway (empiricism is practical, not a way of gaining absolute knowledge). Hopefully we don’t have to use the former terminology much or in the same way on this subject.

lol you’ve had me speechless at misunderstanding too, but I’m not making accusations.

You have COMPLETELY IGNORED my assertion that your current defense of the assertion "any belief set is supported by sense data" stands in stark contradiction of earlier defenses of it. 

I believe this is what you are referring to:

So when you said "any belief set is supported by sense data" (and you now say that you meant "legitimate belief" instead of "ANY belief"), it makes no sense to me that you meant "any set of beliefs whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge is supported by sense data", this makes no sense because you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all. 

   This is just an example of how difficult it is for me to grasp what’s happening in our confusion here. I never said only legitimate beliefs can be supported by sense data. I always stood by “any” beliefs. I think I once phrased it: legitimate and illegitimate beliefs could be supported by sense data. So apparently somewhere my terminology isn’t being understood and you’re able to induce this.

   Besides that misunderstanding over my use of “any”, the difficulty also comes in the fact that I think I’ve elsewhere seen you use ‘legitimate belief’ in a way that confused me too. So it’s like I don’t know where to start explaining myself. I don’t know how far back in the scheme of explanation our terminology is being misunderstood.

   You then said "it makes no sense to me that you meant "any set of beliefs whereby one can apply a method of truth to arrive at absolute knowledge is supported by sense data". I don’t know what that means. I know I never said that explicitly so our confusion on terminology has allowed you to induce that apparently.

  You then say “you also have the position that sense data cannot be reliable evidence at all”. Nope. Nope I don’t. But this is certainly tedious terminology if said that way. Sense data is “evidence” for any belief (aka supports any belief). Thus it’s why it can’t be used to determine the correct belief. Anyway, that’s just an example of the confusion I’m having.

   Alas, on to our new issue.

Blurring the Distinction

   The links lead me to a page (they both appeared to be the same) combining several things you said before in attempting to explain your “practical something thing” (not being sarcastic, I just don’t know what you prefer to call it in this way). They’re still just as confusing to me I’m afraid. You did have an addition at the end that seemed new.

   And…*sigh*… I’m sorry but the more you explain your position the more confusion I have. In this new bit you defined “knowledge that is not absolute” as “would not necessarily be true for any belief set”. What does that mean? Stated conversely you would define absolute knowledge as that which would necessarily be true for any belief set. That still doesn’t make sense to me. I mean… if taken one way in my mind it would seem to contradict your view which is dependent on assumptions.

   But but forget it, do you just mean something like “If we assume sense data is accurate we have a dependable system to operate within”?

   Or do you mean something like “there is an assumption made for each particular arrangement of sense data you receive and it’s interaction with you is dependable”?

“Previous Three Sentences” and “Next Most Previous Sentence”

   Um, how about did I just present your position correctly in two possibilities mentioned above? Otherwise I’m just gonna be giving you all my confusion again over those sentences or giving you a bunch of possibilities in my mind of what you meant.

Isn’t this the “next most previous sentence” before the three?

No, that's not what I mean, if I understand "method of truth" correctly.

Is that what you were asking what is amiss about?

My Original Issue Over Absolute Knowledge

Not to get back into my original issue but I’m just curious as to why you think empiricism doesn’t give absolute knowledge (if not for the explanation I give of it).

ps I find your tag line humorous in relation to all this: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." 

Just noticed this post of yours. Thought I’d take a stab at it. Maybe some last minute clarity.

And now it sounds as if you mean "legitimate belief" to be a synonym for absolute knowledge. 

Yes legitimate belief is what I mean by absolute knowledge. A belief that has been gained through a method of truth that guarantees it's not false.

In that case, according to you, legitimate beliefs about the world do not actually exist, since no such belief set can derive absolute knowledge through a "method of truth" without assuming things. No?

   You keep using "belief set" like this and I never understand it. "A belief set that can derive absolute knowledge". Beliefs are derived from a method. If the method guarantees truth, the beliefs I would call “legitimate”.

   And no I don't say that you can't have legitimate beliefs. Only that you can't have them through the method of empricism. There are other methods proposed.

 You couldn't be sure... unless absolute knowledge was given to you. That's the point. If absolute knowledge is given to you about whatever, including the information of where it came from, then... you have absolute knowledge.

It's actually quite logical. 1. You are given absolute knowledge about X. 2. Therefore you have absolute knowledge about X. Saying "we can't be sure of where it came from" would only be true if that absolute knowledge hadn't also been given to you. And knowing it or not wouldn't change the fact that you apparently have absolute knowledge about something else anyway.

   I getcha. I suspect most people (take it or leave it) who absolutely believe that the sky is blue will also “absolutely believe” they got this from looking at sense data or saying that it’s some “logical belief”. Well, they’d have a problem then as those methods confess otherwise.

   If a person merely says he has absolute knowledge that the sky is blue and doesn’t “absolutely know” this comes from such intrinsically impossible methods… well then there's no problem and maybe he does know the sky is blue.

   I only say ‘maybe’ cause I’m not him. As epistemology confines us to our mind alone… it confines me to my mind alone.

   Totally unnecessary, Take it or leave it, I suspect many people do not hold many beliefs, unassociated with the aforementioned methods, with the kind of confidence given to ‘absolute’.

Would it be possible for a person to "absolutely believe" that sense data, logic, empricism, etc., are methods by which "absolute knowledge" could be divined?

Is it possible that empiricism, as a method, could be "revealed" to a person as a proper way to come to truth/"legitimate beliefs"/whatever-it-is-we're-calling-it-atm?

If you don't mind, I would like to set this discussion on a higher priority than the other mess.  I may also respond to that while this is ongoing, but this is probably an even more fundamental issue. 

Anyway, it seems to me that this supposed absolute knowledge would fit into two categories: 
(1) consciously received:  I would hope we can both agree on what this phrase means, but if there is any hint of doubt we can discuss it.  [edit: Described in another post as "You receive data and are aware of the fact".]
(2) not consciously received:  i.e. one just HAS it.  [edit: Also described in another post as "your mind/memories/beliefs are altered and you are not aware of it".]

[edit:  If there is any disagreement about the fact that two categories much like that exist, or over where the line is to be drawn separating the two, please speak up.]

Now, if (1) is the case, how do we know it is in fact absolute knowledge?  It seems to me that you are saying that one is also given absolute knowledge that the other absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge.  I hope you can see the infinite loop this devolves into, no better than "just because", or "the bible is always correct because it says so, and we know the bible is correct in saying that it is always correct because it is always correct, which we know because it says so". 
     The only way to avoid this problem is to simply trust that the giver is both honest and correct, which is clearly "faith" by any reasonable definition. 

If (2) is the case, I do not see any way we can differentiate it from a "belief" that comes from within us and is not trustable.  It would take "faith" that this is absolute knowledge and not just a belief. 

Your "quite logical" explanation only works because it PRESUMES that the absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge, which is begging the question.  (Note:  Unless you're saying that absolute certainty (no matter the origin of said certainty) that it is absolute knowledge makes it so ... I hope you can truly assure me that you are not saying this.) 

Off topic:  howdy, donathos. 

Howdy! :)

1.  YES!!! YESYESYESYES!  AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FINALLY!
I have a feeling this could allow for substantial progress.  Even if not, at least we've gotten somewhere. 

2.  I think at this point you need to define "method" and "method of truth".  You have used the phrase "method of truth" many many times, and I do not recall you ever defining it, and I want you to now.  Probably I should have asked this some time ago. 

Also:  "Other methods".  I suppose you refer to something based on revelation, correct?  (If not, then what?  Or, if "yes, but there is a third possibility", then what is that?) 

Is there any input possible besides "sense data" and "revelation"?  (I leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether those two are even separate.)  And would you agree that any legitimate belief about the world must eventually hinge on some form of input?