You are right. There is a difference between believing and knowing. A person can even fool himself into believing he knows something. Note that erroneous thinking or even correct thinking does not always result in knowing. Knowing means facts not interpretation of them. Case in point:
A jury is required to examine evidence and make a decision from the evidence. There is DNA, testimony, a recorded confession, arguments, common sense. All of the evidence is so persuasive that there can only be one verdict or conclusion from the evidence. The problem is that the jury cannot say I do not know even though that it is a fact that they do not know. They can say though that the evidence that is presented to them establishes the verdict. In any case you will always hear this being said: "I know he did it "
This is a great book :by Deborah J. Bennett "Logic made easy"
I also agree that a disciplined mind does not jump to conclusions. Feigning knowledge and lack of it is lying but I remember that many years ago in the office I worked, after lunch, our team got together everyday to solve the Times crossword puzzle and we had to put in words that we were not sure of and try them out until we solved the puzzle.
This is an example of how one can be sure something is a fact. Suppose you saw lightning strike once on a point. It is a coincidence (need I say more?) A second time same spot (this requires further investigation) a third time (I need more proof) a fourth time, a fifth time, a sixth time, seventh, eight, nine, ten until, your mind is convinced (or whatever YOUR mind needs to be convinced something is true) You know that it is not a coincidence. Some people do not need so much evidence but that is irrefutable evidence forcing YOUR mind to accept as fact. I mean this only as an example of how someone can be personally convinced something is true. In a lab you observe and measure. A word of caution, observing something and deriving something from the observation is not the same.
When I asked you to correct my thinking, I meant in understanding objectivelly the theory of how 0 became something. ( nothing wrong with trying to understand a theory). Very interesting how you said that nothing became more complicated.I have seen your posts on evolution. You referenced a long list of scientists and associations. That is quite a burden! I also watched the video you linked on it and others.
You have made your point regarding knowing and faking it. Also, Your honesty regarding the theory of nothing (not knowing) is noted. With appreciation. Fish