...but that confidence in our beliefs can elevate--internally--those beliefs to something that we call "knowledge." In that way, we can see that while the one can affect the other, they are not synonymous in any way. Finally, while I agree with all six equations, I don't think that all of them are applicable to what I wrote.

You seem to be suggesting that belief + confidence = knowledge (sometimes referred to as justified-true-belief).

I consider knowledge to be everything we know. Basically data. Knowledge is not necessarily "true" or "false", it's simply neutral data.

I'm glad you technically agree on my proposed glossary of terms, think of them more as attempts to stake out common ground (to facilitate further discussion) and less as specific counterfactuals aimed directly at your comments.

When you say that one's humanity is verifiable and that one's love of pizza is not, you are--it seems--relying on outside perceptions to determine the existence of both proof and fallacy.

I'm drawing a bright line between the realm of science (Quantifiable) and the realm of private personal experience (Qualitative).

Only the Quantifiable can be considered provably true or provably false.

What is Qualitative is pure opinion and carries no "truth value" and cannot be properly considered "true" or "false".

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

If I did not believe in my own existence, I would have to look to others to prove that I am real, which places the verifiable truth of me in external hands.

Let's just jump right into the classical problem of identity.

You can only be absolutely 100% certain of logical tautologies.

For example, there can be no such thing as "nothingness", therefore, everything I know and perceive is "somethingness".

It is possible to doubt one's own "humanness" but it is logically impossible to doubt one's own existence.

Also, 100% confidence in one's perception is neither justified nor required in order to take effective action.

Generally, perception is our best source of data.

Even (IFF) we are immersed in a hypothetical solipsistic dream, even (THEN) the scientific method is still the most reliable method of gathering data.

The efficacy of the scientific method is not affected by the solipsistic dream hypothesis.

Can I prove that I love pizza? That's a toughie. Where is the line drawn?

Your love of pizza is unfalsifiable. You might convince me that your love of pizza is sincere with a compelling emotional demonstration or an impassioned plea, but there is no way to "prove" it.

It is a category error to even attempt to assign any "truth value" to a purely Qualitative opinion.