Final answer:
The question relates to philosophical skepticism and how it challenges the concept of knowing anything for certain. Philosophers debate whether absolute certainty is necessary for knowledge or if other standards of justification suffice. This topic is deeply rooted in the exploration of evidence, belief, and certainty in the realm of philosophical inquiry.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed by the student touches upon a deep philosophical issue about knowledge and certainty. It asks how we can claim to know anything if we don't have absolute certainty. Scepticism in philosophy often relies on this idea that the lack of complete certainty precludes us from claiming true knowledge. However, it's important to consider different standards of justification beyond absolute certainty, as suggested by philosophical responses to scepticism, such as those by philosopher G.E. Moore. Belief does not necessarily equate to knowledge, and this is a key distinction in understanding how we justify our claims to knowledge.
The issue often requires examining the evidence for and against certain beliefs and whether this evidence is satisfactory to overcome doubt. Since validating information purely based on our senses and perceptions leaves room for philosophical skepticism, such as the 'brain in a vat' scenario, it is necessary to explore different grounds for justification. We might not need absolute certainty for knowledge; rather, it is possible that we operate on a level of reasonable probability and coherence within our experiences and empirical evidence that lends us to draw conclusions about reality, despite not being infallible.