Watch malice attack it and ignorance deride it.... but there it will remain.
Sparhafoc said:as I've explained before, the vast majority of the world's knowledge is not in any way contingent upon knowing the name of one's great (x10) grandfather.
For example, the way we know how gravity operates, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that all material is comprised of very small units which bond together in various ways... not one of these requires knowledge of a great (x10) grandfather's name, and knowing one's great (x10) grandfather's name would neither provide this information, nor be of any use in attaining this information.
So for example, if we want to look at the age of something dramatically greater than our great (x10) grandfather's age - which we can assume for the argument is about 300 years ago - we can use a variety of techniques to date the age of that object, wholly independent of anyone's name being known.
To make this clearer for you eass3, I will mimic your argument but change some details to see if you find it convincing.
You do not know the name of the guy or gal who made your underwear, therefore you can't know what you ate for breakfast this morning.
It is exactly the same non-sequitur arrangement of clauses as your argument. The result clause does not follow from the the preceding hypothetical clause, therefore your argument makes no logical sense - it literally is meaningless.