Problem: I need help explaining in 3 paragraphs Peter Unger's argument from his piece, An Argument for Skepticism. Do you think Peter Unger is correct to claim that certainty is required for knowledge? If so, then offer an argument in defense of his position. If not, then offer an argument in objection to his position. Is it possible to have knowledge if certainty is a requirement? Explain why or why not. If knowledge does not require certainty, then what does this mean for the concept of knowledge? Explain why Gettier's examples do or do not prove problematic for Unger's position?