Knowledge Vs. Belief Vs. Opinion

Ponder This said:

I think that a good first step in understanding a particular word and how it differs from some other words or words is to consult a dictionary.

So (and I know this is sort treading on your desire of the OP to put dictionary definitions aside, but I think it's necessary to make this point),
I might look up the word "know" and find a definition like "to perceive directly : have direct cognition of" from Meriam-Webster and think, "Hey, you know what, there seems to be something to that. Maybe knowing something has to do with some sort of direct perception or cognition of a thing."
And I might look up the word :"believe" and see "to think that something is true, correct, or real" from Cambridge and think, "Hmmm, so it seems like believing something has to do with thinking in your mind that they are true or real"
And I might look up "opinion" by just googling and find "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" and think, "It seems like opinions are not facts or knowledge, but instead are just a view or judgement. Maybe opinions are just like beliefs? Is there a subtle difference between opinion and belief?"

And after consulting the dictionary and thinking about it, then a good second step would be to find examples of how the words are used in sentences (which adds a level of context to assist interpretation).


In the case of opinion vs fact there is actually quite a bit written about that. So for example, if the sky is blue, we might know that by direct observation and we would believe it. And if the sky was covered with clouds, we might not know the sky behind the clouds is blue, but we might believe the sky behind the clouds is blue. And, in any case, we might have the opinion that a blue sky is good. And we could sum this up as:
"I know the sky is blue"
"I believe the sky behind the clouds is blue"
"In my opinion, a blue sky is good."

Click to expand...

I found your description of how you use a dictionary interesting, @Ponder This, and I thank you for it. But two quick observations: First, as I understood the OP, it was not asking anyone to forego doing what you do, only to forgo quoting dictionaries in response to the OP. I could be wrong about that, though. I suspect @SalixIncendium would know more about his own OP that I do.

Second, my first wife was an associate editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica which, at the time, owned one of the Webster's dictionary companies. Some of their editors were friends of hers, so she learned how dictionaries are compiled. I could tell you if you have an interest in that sort of thing, but I'd rather know you had an interest before I risked my time talking about it.

Any way, thank you for your response.

Ponder This said:

Cambridge:

"a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being"​

Meriam-Webster:

"a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions"​

I am curious how one makes you an atheist and the other does not, but perhaps that is the subject of another thread.

Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster: 1 God: the supreme or ultimate reality

Definition of GOD

Since I do recognize an ultimate reality, Brahman, Merriam-Webster's definition applies with regard to my recognizing a god, thereby making me not meet the criteria to be an atheist; Cambridge's has no such definition for 'god,' which would make me meet the criteria for being an atheist.

Different dictionaries; varying definitions.

Ponder This said:

But back to this thread... You want to put dictionary definitions "aside", even though that may be the starting point for some people in thinking about what differentiates "I know" "I believe" and "In my opinion".

Click to expand...

Setting something aside does not mean tossing it away. I didn't want people posting dictionary definitions, but I also wasn't my intent to disregard them completely. The point of the thread was to determine how members here typically use them.

Sunstone said:

First, as I understood the OP, it was not asking anyone to forego doing what you do, only to forgo quoting dictionaries in response to the OP. I could be wrong about that, though. I suspect @SalixIncendium would know more about his own OP that I do.

Click to expand...

This is correct.

I think it would be best to consult as many dictionaries as possible to get the best sense of a word. Then the next step would be to keep one's self open to reconsideration of words that have issues.

I know I am guilty of redefining terms or I often try to go more in depth with the basic meaning.

Exploring the possibilities of the word, one can go in many directions that add to the original intent. I do have personal dictionaries for important words of pertinent interest to me.

I find a dictionary can open up, or close down a conversation. It's merely a reference for deeper exploration of meaning.

What does it take to be an arbiter of words?

SalixIncendium said:

Merriam-Webster: 1 God: the supreme or ultimate reality

Definition of GOD

Click to expand...

You quoted the definition from Meriam-Webster for "God" as opposed to the definition from Merriam-Webster for "god".
The definition for "God" from Cambridge dictionary is: "(in some religions) the being who made the universe and is believed to have an effect on all things"
Perhaps this is what you meant?

SalixIncendium said:

Setting something aside does not mean tossing it away. I didn't want people posting dictionary definitions, but I also wasn't my intent to disregard them completely. The point of the thread was to determine how members here typically use them.

Click to expand...

That's fair. So I'll toss some ideas into the mix... an opinion, if you will...

"God exists" is an assertion which lacks an introduction such as "I know", "I believe", or "In my opinion"
The statement "God exists" is meant to be considered independently of a subjective identity (although the subjective identity of a speaker is implied).
The introduction of an "I" such as "I know", "I believe", or "In my opinion" is a direct assertion of subjective identity and means that the speaker is saying something about himself, because otherwise, the speaker could just say "God exists" without mentioning himself and belief is implied.

If a person says, "I know God exists", it suggests that the speaker has either direct experience or other incontrovertible proof (or is referring to things generally accepted as true). The speaker is claiming to possess certain knowledge or is referencing things learned that are commonly accepted as true. For example, "I know the history of religion" indicates the speaker has learned something about the body of knowledge commonly accepted as true about the history of religion. So even though "I know" is a subjective assertion, the implication of an "I know" statement is that the statement should generally be accepted as true.

If a person says, "I believe God exists", the speaker is emphasizing his internal thinking, because belief is already implied by the statement, "God exists". There can be many reasons to emphasize one's subjectivity, so the implications of "I believe" heavily depend on context. However, there is no claim to knowledge, belief can even contradict things commonly accepted as true, and there is no implication that others ought to accept the statement as true.

If a person says, "In my opinion...", the speaker is emphasizing his judgement or point of view. It doesn't actually make that much sense to say, "In my opinion, God exists" because the existence of a thing is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion (and therefore, the speaker should either say, "I know God exists" or "I believe God exists"). For opinion, it makes more sense to say something like, "In my opinion, God is good", because the goodness of a thing is a matter of judgement as opposed to a matter of fact. Subjectivity is strongly emphasized, so that when a person attaches IMHO, it suggests to the reader that this is a point of view for consideration as opposed to a statement of fact (if you disagree with a fact you are wrong but if you disagree with an opinion than you just have a different opinion).

I realize that some people regard, "God is good" as either absolute truth or provable proposition about morality (is morality a matter of fact or a matter of opinion ), but the common use of the word 'good' is as an opinion. For example, "This broccoli is good!" Is this a statement about the moral nature of broccoli?

Sunstone said:

I found your description of how you use a dictionary interesting, @Ponder This, and I thank you for it. But two quick observations: First, as I understood the OP, it was not asking anyone to forego doing what you do, only to forgo quoting dictionaries in response to the OP. I could be wrong about that, though. I suspect @SalixIncendium would know more about his own OP that I do.

Second, my first wife was an associate editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica which, at the time, owned one of the Webster's dictionary companies. Some of their editors were friends of hers, so she learned how dictionaries are compiled. I could tell you if you have an interest in that sort of thing, but I'd rather know you had an interest before I risked my time talking about it.

Any way, thank you for your response.

Click to expand...

That sounds interesting. You can PM if you think it's too far off topic.

osgart said:

What does it take to be an arbiter of words?

Click to expand...

Since the late 1800s, and the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, it has been universally accepted among people who professionally study the link between words and their meanings that there are no natural or proper meanings to words. Their meanings are arbitrary constructs but exist within a system -- so their meanings are arbitrary, but not wholly random.

That eventually translates into each of us being the arbitrator of the meanings of the words we use (with the proviso that if we assign unusual meanings to words without making those new meanings clear, then we are quite unlikely to communicate with people).

Ferdinand de Saussure was such an influential thinker on this subject, @osgart, the everyone else working in the fields of semiotics and linguistics is now described in terms of him. e.g. pre-Saussure. Post-Suassure. Neo-Suassure. Suassurian. Non-Suassurian, etc.

Sunstone said:

Since the late 1800s, and the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, it has been universally accepted among people who professionally study the link between words and their meanings that there are no natural or proper meanings to words. Their meanings are arbitrary constructs but exist within a system -- so their meanings are arbitrary, but not wholly random.

That eventually translates into each of us being the arbitrator of the meanings of the words we use (with the proviso that if we assign unusual meanings to words without making those new meanings clear, then we are quite unlikely to communicate with people).

Ferdinand de Saussure was such an influential thinker on this subject, @osgart, the everyone else working in the fields of semiotics and linguistics is now described in terms of him. e.g. pre-Saussure. Post-Suassure. Neo-Suassure. Suassurian. Non-Suassurian, etc.

Click to expand...

Hey Thanks a lot. I will definetly look him up. I never knew that such a system existed. Stands to reason, not to be tangential.

Reminds of my niece when she was young. She started creating her own language because she didn't like English. She grew out of it though. Lol.

SalixIncendium said:

Dictionary definitions aside, for the purposes of contributing to this forum, how do you differentiate knowledge, belief, and opinion?

In other words, what, for you, is the difference between the following statements?

I know...
I believe...
In my opinion...​

Click to expand...

In everyday life, I think that these are typically indications of strength of conviction. "I know..." communicates very strong conviction. "I believe..." somewhere in the middle. "In my opinion..." even less conviction, a hypothesis being tossed out for consideration.

Philosophically, I consider knowledge to be a subspecies of belief. (Where belief is a mental state in which a proposition is held to be true.) Knowledge is belief that 1) actually is true, and 2) is suitably justified. Obviously there are serious problems with both halves of that. But that's the framework.

And religiously, in Buddhism at any rate, perhaps more broadly in Indian pramana theory, knowledge in the proper sense is knowledge by direct personal experience. It isn't something arrived at by texts, by expert testimony or by various forms of logical inference. In Buddhism beliefs are views, which aren't always a good thing if people get too wound up battling to defend them. "In my opinion" are also views, but they might not be so bad if one isn't so tightly wedded to them. "I'd guess..." or "I'd speculate..." might be even better. Hypotheses.

Sunstone said:

Since the late 1800s, and the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, it has been universally accepted among people who professionally study the link between words and their meanings that there are no natural or proper meanings to words. Their meanings are arbitrary constructs but exist within a system -- so their meanings are arbitrary, but not wholly random.

That eventually translates into each of us being the arbitrator of the meanings of the words we use (with the proviso that if we assign unusual meanings to words without making those new meanings clear, then we are quite unlikely to communicate with people).

Ferdinand de Saussure was such an influential thinker on this subject, @osgart, the everyone else working in the fields of semiotics and linguistics is now described in terms of him. e.g. pre-Saussure. Post-Suassure. Neo-Suassure. Suassurian. Non-Suassurian, etc.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, it is more precise to say that meanings are natural and proper, but the words which encapsulate meaning are arbitrary.

For example, grapes exist, but the word for grapes is different in different languages. Thus, there is a natural and proper meaning; it is the lexicon itself that is arbitrary.

This explains how people who do not share a common language can begin to communicate with each other despite not having words with which to do so.

Mock Turtle said:

In my opinion, I believe I know I am alive - but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

You could be among the walking dead? My opinion.

2ndpillar said:

You could be among the walking dead? My opinion.

Click to expand...

Sitting dead at the moment more likely. But it was more about not really knowing anything, including one's own existence, since we might just be part of some game. Not that I believe such of course. And if one couldn't tell the difference between a (virtual) game and a God-controlled existence - since we might not have any volition in either of these - why would I bother to be interested in such?