From a practical standpoint there is likely no significant difference in the consequences of these two approaches. From an epistemological standpoint they seem to me radically different.
Like others, I think this whole conversation is very odd. I once had a conversation with
@quatona where he replied with something to the effect of (paraphrasing): If that's how you feel, just say it. Don't beat around the bush. What you feel is what you feel and no one can tell you differently. Though I believe his comments only referred to feelings, I feel (ha!) much the same applies to how one thinks or how one interprets an experience. I think what I think. I've experienced what I've experienced.
For him to then come back and make such a big deal about my experiences with unbelievers in conversations he never witnessed is just ... very, very odd. If
@quatona doesn't think science is the only means of knowing, fine. He also thinks what he thinks, feels what he feels, and experiences what he experiences ... though my experience with
@quatona is that, if he replies to this, he will tell me all the reasons this post is wrong. I don't recall ever having a conversation with him where he ever did anything else. So either every thought I've ever had is wrong, or
@quatona will argue with anything and everything at the drop of a hat.
And, when it's all said and done, despite all the arguing, I will conclude most of it is quibbling over semantics, word choice, etc.
There are times precise word choice is necessary, and there are times one needs to ask for clarification before a post can be understood. But I suspect most of the time such things are done at CF so that a post can be carved up in order to select specific sub-sub-sub-points that can be refuted.
I'm an engineer, and engineers have a reputation for being socially awkward poor communicators. In terms of face-to-face verbal communication, I've had my fair share of awkward moments, yet I've been told (everywhere else except here by non-believers) that my written communication skills are very good.
One observation I've made about engineers and communication is similar to what I see here. Rather than say something common like, "I went walking today," engineers will make some odd statement like "I used my legs to transport my body across a horizontal surface during the 32nd revolution of the planet earth." Maybe that's more precise wording ... but it's just plain idiotic to speak that way in casual conversation.
There is a common sense - a common understanding of the context of a conversation that allows the use of the word "know" instead of reverting to an awkward avoidance of that word in order to remain true to some obscure philosophical point. All it does is add to the confusion rather than dispel it, or it causes people to think you're avoiding the question like a politician, or it makes them think you're just plain weird.
Bottom line, my first impression is that your choice of wording is only a semantic difference from mine rather than a radically different epistemological standpoint. But feel free to elaborate on the major differences you see.
[end of rant]