 Earlier I said that there are two possibilities. Either you think Descartes standard is a good standard or you don't. If you think Descartes standard is a good standard, well you doesn't look like you know that you're not in the matrix or any of the skeptical hypotheses. All right, but what happens if you reject the standard? It's not as if there's something easy happening here either. If you reject the standard, then there's some level of doubt that's acceptable in order for you to have knowledge. And whenever there's some level of doubt, there's always the possibility that you can know something that's false, know something that's false. How would, how do you do that? What level is that? I mean, it's really obvious in cases where it's just obviously false, right? Or obviously a problem that you think, oh well, you don't know that, but people speak this way, don't they? They buy the lottery ticket and say, well I know I'm going to win this time. I don't think you do because the chances are radically against you. Really against you that you're going to win. You've got no particular evidence that you have the winning lottery ticket. And you know these situations like, you don't know, even if it happens to be true, right? Suppose they do win the lottery, first you're probably going to apologize and ask for a few thousand bucks, right? But even if they happen to win, you think, well you just got lucky, right? You just got lucky in that belief. You didn't know you were going to win. You just happened to win. You got no justification, no credibility, no evidence for that. So in these really obvious cases, it's easy to see that a high level of doubt is not acceptable. But how far can you lower it and you still know things? Like I said, it's not as if human intuition and thought has solved a lot of these problems through the centuries. We're still asking the question of what it means to exist. We're still coming up with answers. Many people argue we're just using the same answers over and over again. Sometimes we realize that sometimes we don't. There's no non-controversial answer for the question what accounts for your continued existence. I mean they all have deep problems. They all have issues that we just kind of hope would go away but don't. Even answering something like is everything composed of the finite or is it composed of infinite? Either way, it seems like there's a deep problem that seems to really cast doubt in our ability to answer these questions. And if it does, it's kind of like that lottery ticket. Do we just happen upon the right belief? It sure seems like, I mean suppose the atomists are right. It sure seems like they just got lucky. Suppose Ann makes Amanda's right. Looks like you just got lucky. We can keep on going down the list. If it really is that sort of situation, if we just happen to be right but it could have just as easily been wrong, it's about this wide range of beliefs. If you happen to have a true belief and you just happen to be lucky, is that really knowledge? So it's like there's two possibilities here. Either you accept Descartes' standard in which case you don't know that the table exists or what? If you happen to be right, you got lucky?