In stark contrast to a widely attended school of epistemological thought, namely: that which adheres to a superfluous distinction between "knowledge" (true, justified beliefs) and "SUPERknowledge" (true beliefs, justified at the level of certainty), I've come up with my own little theory of knowledge.
Before providing my theoretical overview, though, I'll highlight what I feel is the most glaring problem (beyond superficiality) of the knowledge/superknowledge distinction.
In line with the definition of "knowledge" as "true, justified belief" (which entails that we can justify a claim to knowledge on the grounds that a "justified belief" happens to be "true", despite not knowing that it is, in fact, true), I've surmized that such "justified beliefs" can go in two directions; if proven true, they can ascend to the Heavenly Heights of "Superknowledge" (!), on the other hand, if proven untrue, they can descend--by virtue of definition--into the muck and mire of "erroneous classification" (i.e. the true state of such knowledge ascriptions...to begin with).
Now, where my own theory of knowledge differs (primarily) from the above is that I simply don't employ a superfluous category. For me, "justified beliefs", whether true or false, remain in the category of "belief" until such time that their truth or falsity becomes known to the believer. At that point, the following phenomenon takes place: (see added note regarding this point) the belief transcends its walls of classification, becoming knowledge, and a believer on a given matter is transformed into a knower on that matter. Accordingly, from my perspective, "knowledge" and "belief" are the only necessary epistemic categories.
I look forward to any stripe of feedback (whether positive or negative).
NOTE: the transcendence/transformation phenomenon occurs whether the belief is proven to be true OR false, because, in either proven case, the former believer would then hold knowledge in respect to the former belief.