Hanover wrote:
Our dispute therefore revolves around the fact that we are not using the term "subjective" in a consistent manner. Subjective is the opposite of objective. Uncertainty is the opposite of certainty. If you are saying that justifications are objectively true or false and statements about reality are objectively true of false, then you are not arguing that knowledge is subjective. What you are simply saying is that any assertion we make about the world is made without certainty. That is, you are not arguing that knowledge is subjective; you're just arguing that it's uncertain. Subjective truths are those truths that are true if the subject says it is so (e.g. "the picture is pretty," to the moral relativist, "murder is bad"). Objective truths are those that are true regardless of what the subject believes (e.g. "the rock exists," to the moral absolutist, "murder is bad"). When you say, "there is a rock before me," that is not a subjective truth; it's just an uncertain belief.

reincarnated wrote:
You believe (on the basis of JTB) that you knew that Joe was coming over to your house.
I claim that I have information inaccessible to you, and based on this (also on the basis of JTB) I believe that you did NOT know that Joe was coming over to your house.
At least one of us is wrong (incorrect) in our belief about your knowledge. Who is wrong? To answer this question we need God’s-eye view, which we do not have.
How do you propose to solve this conundrum?
Justifications, just like truths, may have objective truth-values, but the point you seem to keep ignoring is that we have no infallible access to this truth value! All each of us has is our individual epistemic perspectives, based on our beliefs. One of us may be “correct”, but how do we test infallibly?
And how does it work? What happens if I claim that I have this form of freedom, and I therefore believe I have God’s-eye view, and you also claim that you have this form of freedom, and you therefore also believe you have God’s-eye view, but nevertheless the two of us disagree on what we believe to be true? What then?
We’ve been here before – apologies if I sound like a stuck record but you don’t seem to be understanding the following:
That we cannot know infallibly does NOT imply that we cannot know.
That we cannot possess infallible knowledge does NOT imply that we cannot possess knowledge.
You seem to be insisting on infallible knowledge, claiming that if we cannot know infallibly then we cannot know at all (which is false), but at the same time you cannot explain how you arrive at this infallible knowledge.
Think about it.

Hanover wrote:
Fine, take your ball and go home.

Hanover wrote:
You've never defended your epistomological theory against the Gettier objection, and you've never explained how one item of alleged "knowledge" can ever be said to be more valid than a competing item of knowlege (remember the reliability discussion).

Hanover wrote:
Instead, you're asking generally "how can you ever know that what you know is true," which I have agreed that you can't without having an objective perspective of the world. You then ask how can that ever be, and my response is that it cannot be if we live in a world where we have stipulated that we are completely controlled by random forces.