Peter Unger argues that all knowledge requires certainty. Furthermore, because he insists that nothing can be known with certainty, Unger concludes that “no one ever knows that something is such” (Unger, 42). This is Unger's argument:1. “If someone knows that something is so, then it is good for him to be absolutely certain that it is so” (42).2. “It is never good for anyone to be absolutely certain that something is so” (43).3. Therefore, “[n]o one ever knows that something is so” (43). In summary, no one can know anything. Since “anything” makes it explicit, Unger suggests that we cannot have knowledge of our own existence, external objects, past or present experiences, or even that 1+1=2. He also insists that knowing something with certainty is inherently dogmatic. Being certain implies a negative attitude; this implies that nothing (new information, evidence or experiences) “will be seriously considered relevant to any possible change in one's way of thinking on the matter” (44). Unger calls this the attitude of certainty. This is why it is wrong "for anyone to have absolute certainty". I agree with Unger and admit that (2) is correct. However, Unger's rejection of the attitude of certainty leads to the rejection of all knowledge. This is where Unger makes a mistake. I intend to argue that premise (1) is dubious and that knowledge requires true and justified belief, but never certainty itself. Before continuing, I need to clarify Unger's concept of certainty. So far I have used Unger's concept of certainty (shown in italics) without any explanation. Of course it is an absolute adjective similar to the concept of dish. An absolute adjective is or is not. A table, for example, is flat if and only if it shows no change in degree... middle of the paper... nger's first premise).2. Knowledge is belief justified with confidence.3. Being confident, but not certain, allows for changes in opinion/belief in the face of new information and experiences (avoiding Unger's attitude of certainty).4. Knowing with confidence, but being susceptible to new information is not dogmatic.5. People can know things confidently without being dogmatic.6. Therefore, people can justifiably and confidently know that some things are so. The above argument allows you to know things but in a non-dogmatic way. Although knowing with confidence (but not with certainty) can be considered a weak sense of knowing, it avoids the skeptical conclusion while also avoiding Unger's attitude of certainty. With the ability to amend and modify justified beliefs (knowledge), certainty is inherently absent from this notion of knowledge.