Hello! When thinking about any area of knowledge, it seems to me that there are two main ways that the truth claims within that area could be structured. That is: either the system is built on axioms, or it is a big interconnected and self-supporting web. Now, I'm inclined to believe that there are epistemic problems with both of these structures from the point of view of persuading a non-believer: the problem with axioms is that they have to be taken as "self-evident" or as given, and if you disagree with those axioms, tough luck; on the other hand, an interconnected web is just one big axiom, or one big circular argument, and if you happen to be standing outside the circle, there's no good reason for you to enter it. I wanted to ask a two-part question. Many thanks in advance for any reply. (1) Is there anything wrong with my view of how knowledge is structured? (2) Is there any path to certainty or to persuading non-believers, or are you always left with foundational claims that have to be treated as self-evident?

Read another response about Knowledge