From its seeming to me - or to everyone - to be so, it doesn’t follow that it is so.

What we can ask is whether it can make sense to doubt it.

Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.

Everything which is not a matter of social practice is no help in understanding the justification of human knowledge.

Now when a man gets a true judgment about something without an account, his soul is in a state of truth as regards that thing, but he does not know it; for someone who cannot give and take an account of a thing is ignorant about it. But when he has also got an account of it, he is capable of all this and is made perfect in knowledge.

Explaining is not […] a matter of discovering, or imparting, more propositional knowledge; explanatory activity consists in constructing derivations whose structure and steps are logically or epistemically related in certain specified ways to the rest of the belief system. To put it somewhat crudely, explanation is a matter of the shape and organization of one’s belief system, not of its contents.

Knowledge requires coherence, true enough, but it often requires more: e.g., that one be adequately related, causally or counterfactually, to the objects of one’s knowledge, to one’s environment or surroundings, which is not necessarily ensured by the mere coherence of one’s beliefs, no matter how comprehensively coherent they may be. […] Knowledge requires not only internal justification or coherence or rationality, but also external warrant or aptness. We must be both in good internal order and in appropriate external relation to our surrounding world.