Deepti asked:

Without a knowledge of the past, we would have no knowledge at all. Well..what do you
think?..agree? disagree?

============

Knowledge of any object beyond pure surface appearances (if there are such things) involves
knowledge of what it will do in such-and-such circumstances. This knowledge is based on past
experience. Therefore, with no knowledge of the past, there would be little, or possibly no knowledge
at all.

In my online philosophical notebook for 21 August I look at a view which I once held according to
which a statement about the past only 'has' a truth value if it can be verified. This 'anti-realist' view of
the past is consistent with the belief that we do have knowledge of those 'bits' of the past that we can
remember or have evidence for. Arguably, the alternative, 'realist' view of the past makes it easier to
hold a sceptical view, because there will always be a gap between the verifications we can carry out
and the truth that is 'out there' beyond our reach.

Geoffrey Klempner