Picking up a point of BDK's
In a previous dialogue BDK wrote: Regardless of my argument that a child with no epistemology training can know X, would you agree with the conclusion that a naive child can have such knowledge (i.e., that observation judgments can be knowledge)?
I'm not asking for an analysis of why they are knowledge, but if you think they do not constitute knowledge, then we definitely will not get any further. If you do there might be interesting questions at that point. So, can a philosophically naive child know X in the way I've described?
BDK: I'm interested in BDK's conception of philosophical naivete. Does this child know how to use the term "I know?" It seems to me that long before one takes philosophy one knows how to use the word know and can distinguish knowledge from "just guessing."
Can one know without knowing how to use the word "know?" My intuition says yes.
This isn't supposed to prove a point with respect to the argument from reason, one way or the other.