Here's another little nugget. It begins the same as before, but ends differently.
The traditional definition of knowledge has it that for a statement to be classed as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. To satisfy these three conditions a criterion of truth is required, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a statement is true.
Although a statement which is true for one is true for all, one can have knowledge that nobody else has. Some people may have performed a procedure which proves that a statement is true, while others have not. Knowledge, therefore, depends upon the history of each individual’s personal experience--such as sense perceptions or clear and distinct ideas. It is not enough to merely be believe a true statement to have knowledge, but necessary to "back up" or "support" that belief by appealing to some personal experience. For example, before a true statement can become knowledge, it may be necessary to conduct a scientific experiment, develop a mathematical proof, or even consult a religious text.
If personal experience is used to prove a statement--and thereby, create knowledge--then it is generally expected of a proven statement that it be logically entailed by whatever experience is invoked as justification. Logic, however, does not take experiences as premises, because they are not objects from which deductions can be made. Propositional-variables are the objects of logic; a proposition is a kind of statement. Experiences are not statements, and therefore, nothing can be deduced from them. Propositions may be constructed about experiences, but there is no logical relation (consistency, inconsistency, or entailment) between a statement and an experience. Logical relations, such as entailment, can only hold between one proposition and another proposition. If experiences are to be used as a “foundation” or “basis” for knowledge, then they do so non-logically.