Explain peter ungers arguemeny from his piece an arguemeny for skepticism. Do you think peter ungers is correct to claim that certainty is required for knowledge? If so, then offer an arguement in defense of his position. If not then offer an argument in objection to his position

I do not agree with the statement by Peter Ungers, although it is true that knowledge must be evaluated to be totally reliable and accurate, it does not mean that there is no absolute truth or absolute knowledge.

Explanation:

To begin with, we can analyze what scientists transmit to us through their research. If the knowledge were not absolute, one could doubt such fundamental truths as gravity, the speed of light, and even the rotational and translational movements that the earth performs. , all these facts have been verified and have been established as truthful and reliable knowledge, and in many cases, knowledge already acquired and verified serves as the basis to support other laws.

im sorry i for got

explanation: