Belief and Knowing

[Fool]

I think all knowledge people have is knowledge only because people believe it is knowledge.

bs


believing i fed someone and knowing i fed someone are definitely different. belief without works is non-reality, not realized.


show me your beliefs, and i'll show you beliefs by action.

 

[Martin]

belief is not information. they aren't synonyms on any level.

information is based on fact and not imagination. imagining anything/everything doesn't mean it is even if it might be possible. the only way to determine if belief, thinking is fact is to be able to test/question it against reality.

Though people can interpret information differently, according to their beliefs.

 

[setarcos]

It depends on what sort of experience we are talking about. Look at my example of Jim and his belief he saw Bigfoot. Would you trust his testimony and that be adequate for you to believe in Bigfoot too? Or do you have a high standard of what a person claims as to whether what they claim is rational and plausible?

In the absence of any known contradictory proof that what Jim said couldn't be true I would have no reason not to believe Jim believes he saw Bigfoot AND may be correct. Would I allow Jim's belief to dictate how I might act in the future? That would depend, I suppose, on the above criteria, the probability of any disputing evidence being true, how trustworthy I might find Jim to be - subjectively and/or objectively and how well I know and acknowledge my own biases. I may also believe Jim but I wouldn't Know that the knowledge is true until I experience the information that knowledge contains for myself. How do we judge the standards of what is rational and plausible? Experience, education, intelligence, sincerity and faith for starters. I should refrain from judging Jim though, I would think, until I understand the arguments for and against such things. How trustworthy is Jim? How trustworthy is the Sherriff? Are either expert in identification of tracks? Might either have ulterior motives we can identify for claiming what they claim? Etc. In such cases, in the absence of experience, imparted knowledge becomes a game of probabilities.

 

[setarcos]

Then it is our belief in someone else's knowledge.

Yes. And to the extent that we are willing to have our actions dictated by that belief in the absence of experience is the extent to which we believe the imparted knowledge to be true.

 

[setarcos]

belief is not information. they aren't synonyms on any level.

I think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying or I've said it poorly.
Both belief and knowledge contain information and both can contain false information in that they convey information that does not correlate with reality.
Belief is information in that what I believe may inform you of why I act the way I act for example. Anything that informs in some manner is information.

information is based on fact and not imagination.

This isn't true, depending on how your defining the term "fact". For instance, it may be a fact that I'm imagining things. However if facts are only those things which are confined to reality then nobody would be able to imagine anything. In other words, nobody would be able to not think realistically. Yet we know that isn't a fact.
As I've pointed out, information is anything that informs. If I imagine seeing purple dragons that informs you of what I am imagining even though that information may not conform to our reality as being realistic. The information is real. What it conveys is an unrealistic experience.

the only way to determine if belief, thinking is fact is to be able to test/question it against reality.

Okay, and the only way to do that is to be "informed" of #1 What is reality and #2 What someone's belief is. Both of these things are conveyances of information.

 

[PureX]

Yes. And to the extent that we are willing to have our actions dictated by that belief in the absence of experience is the extent to which we believe the imparted knowledge to be true.

We assess someone else's proclaimed knowledge to be true or untrue. What we actually "believe in" is our assessment of it being true or untrue. Belief is all about us being right. That's what a lot of people don't see.

 

[setarcos]

What we actually "believe in" is our assessment of it being true or untrue.

I suppose, if we are not deliberately deluding ourselves, we might call that faith.

Belief is all about us being right. That's what a lot of people don't see.

Agreed. Except I think its more about ourselves not being wrong in someone else's view rather than we being right in our own. That is a very sad affliction in humanity that we are all prey to.

 

[F1fan]

In the absence of any known contradictory proof that what Jim said couldn't be true I would have no reason not to believe Jim believes he saw Bigfoot AND may be correct.

Oh we KNOW Jim believes he believes he saw Bigfoot, he's telling us. And the likelihood of him being correct is very low since 1. there is no evidence of a Bigfoot in his yard, and 2. there's evidence of a bear which could explain that Jim saw a bear and mistook it for Bigfoot.

So could he be correct? There's a very slim chance he's correct but it is so low that we don't give it any merit. It's vastly more likely Jim was aware of the lore of Bigfoot, made a mistake in judgment in seeing a bear, and has convinced himself that it was actually a Bigfoot. Human error, and bias.

Would I allow Jim's belief to dictate how I might act in the future?

Absolutely. The more attention Jim gets from his Bigfoot story the more he thinks this attention valid the truth of his story, but that is really just his subconscious seeking validation for his judgment that is doubtful.

That would depend, I suppose, on the above criteria, the probability of any disputing evidence being true, how trustworthy I might find Jim to be - subjectively and/or objectively and how well I know and acknowledge my own biases. I may also believe Jim but I wouldn't Know that the knowledge is true until I experience the information that knowledge contains for myself. How do we judge the standards of what is rational and plausible? Experience, education, intelligence, sincerity and faith for starters. I should refrain from judging Jim though, I would think, until I understand the arguments for and against such things. How trustworthy is Jim? How trustworthy is the Sherriff? Are either expert in identification of tracks? Might either have ulterior motives we can identify for claiming what they claim? Etc. In such cases, in the absence of experience, imparted knowledge becomes a game of probabilities.

All good approaches and thoughts. Think of yourself as a juror. Would the sheriff have reason to lie about a Bigfoot? Is Jim known to be rational and objective as a thinker? What type of claim is it?

The point of my example was to point out how human perception can be skewed and biased, and how fear and uncertainty can influence judgment, and how other people respond to the claim and belief will either reinforce a false belief or help the person question it. Witness testimony is among the worst in police investigations and trials.

 

[F1fan]

Though people can interpret information differently, according to their beliefs.

Correct. For example let's say there was a child with cancer and the doctors said there was a 20% chance the treatment will work. So treatment is done and the child does survive. Some will acknowledge the treatment happened to work given the unlikelihood it would, and there are reasons for this, one being the doctors couldn't assess the full scope of the cancer spread and severity, and the prediction was assuming a worse case scenario. Others might say it was a miracle that God came and saved the child. Of course there's no way to test this, and it makes us wonder why God would allow the child to get cancer in the first place.

Or, just look at the response of various citizens to the OJ Simpson verdict.

 

[F1fan]

We assess someone else's proclaimed knowledge to be true or untrue.

Do you see any difference between two things Jim says, 1. that he says he ate a ham sandwich for lunch and 2. that he says he saw Bigfoot last night? Are these equally credible claims?

What we actually "believe in" is our assessment of it being true or untrue.

Would you think your assessment of Jim's second claim to be the same as one of those guys on the Finding Bigfoot show? Let's note one guy said after hearing a noise in the woods "That's a Squatch. I know a Squatch when I hear one." They had no credible fact or data to support this guy's assertion of knowledge.

Belief is all about us being right. That's what a lot of people don't see.

You mean about "us being right" is about belief we MUST be right regardless of whether the idea is implausible and has no basis in fact, and there are other motives?

Or are you suggesting that anyone's belief is right because everyone has a rigorous critical thinking process?

Or that ideally belief should reflect a standard of logic and reason, and any idea that lacks a certain level of believability should be rejected?

 

[F1fan]

I suppose, if we are not deliberately deluding ourselves, we might call that faith.

Of course there is always people being conditioned and influenced by social experiences that implant beliefs subconsciously. We humans adopt many ideas without deliberate thinking. Kids pick up belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy by hearing parents talk about them. These subconscious beliefs then become like a sort of operating assumption that influence deliberate thinking. Think of kids growing up in racist communities and they adopt racist attitudes as part of their experience and identity. Later in life some of these kids might begin to feel inner conflict about these ideas as their moral sense develops. Or they will suppress critical thinking about thee ideas because they are crucial to their social integration and belonging.

 

[PureX]

I suppose, if we are not deliberately deluding ourselves, we might call that faith.

Agreed. Except I think its more about ourselves not being wrong in someone else's view rather than we being right in our own. That is a very sad affliction in humanity that we are all prey to.

When we say "I believe "X" is true (or false)" what we are really saying is that we have decided that we are right about "X" being true (or false). Belief is a determined condition within one's self.

When we say, "I know "X" is true (or false)" what we are really saying is that by our own personal experience of "X", we have determine that "X" is true (or false).

When we say, "I have faith that "X" is true (or false)" what we are really saying is that although we don't know if "X" is true or false, we are choosing to act on the presumption that "X" is true (or false).

The terms get used interchangeably all the time, because they are all tangentially related. But they are actually meant to convey different scenarios.

 

[PureX]

Do you see any difference between two things Jim says, 1. that he says he ate a ham sandwich for lunch and 2. that he says he saw Bigfoot last night? Are these equally credible claims?

I have no way of assessing their credibility, and no reason to do so. I would simply let the statements stand as they are: "Jim says ...".

Would you think your assessment of Jim's second claim to be the same as one of those guys on the Finding Bigfoot show? Let's note one guy said after hearing a noise in the woods "That's a Squatch. I know a Squatch when I hear one." They had no credible fact or data to support this guy's assertion of knowledge.

I have no reason to watch such a show. But if I did watch it, again, I would just let it be what it is. A tv show meant to entertain.

I don't go about the world assessing what's real and true, and what isn't. Especially in the minds of others. I can nearly always just let things be what they are at the moment. Including the minds of others.

You mean about "us being right" is about belief we MUST be right regardless of whether the idea is implausible and has no basis in fact, and there are other motives?

The degree of intensity of one's belief varies by person. I suspect the more frightened one is of being found "wrong" the more adamantly they will insist they are right. "Plausibility" is mostly irrelevant.

Or are you suggesting that anyone's belief is right because everyone has a rigorous critical thinking process?

No human has such a rigorous thinking process that they can claim to be inerrant. Though many still do. Or secretly believe it.

Or that ideally belief should reflect a standard of logic and reason, and any idea that lacks a certain level of believability should be rejected?

There is no right way or wrong way to 'believe'. It's an internal choice. One I choose to avoid as much as possible.

 

[F1fan]

When we say "I believe "X" is true (or false)" what we are really saying is that we have decided that we are right about "X" being true (or false). Belief is a determined condition within one's self.

Then that is a bias, and a bias the self is likely not aware of having. You're saying the judgment is about the self when it should be about the evidence of an idea. You are correct when ideas are tied to identity or society because then there is a bias that can be either conscious or subconscious. People would rather belong rather then be correct. There are studies in psychology that demonstrate people will conform to a wrong idea rather then be an outcast.

If you are on a jury and assessing the evidence presented it needs to be considered objectively. We are well aware of bias and prejudice, which is one reason there was concern about the majority white jury in the Chauvin case. As we know this did not affect the guilty on all three counts verdicts.

When we say, "I know "X" is true (or false)" what we are really saying is that by our own personal experience of "X", we have determine that "X" is true (or false).

This isn't true across the board. Racists will claim they know they are superior to minorities because their experiences validate this. Greg might say that he knows apples and exist and whites are the superior race. He experiences apples existing and his experience informs him he is superior to minorities. Of course what Greg knows about race is a set of values that he has adopted and self-verifies for his own meaning in life. Is it true objectively? No.

When we say, "I have faith that "X" is true (or false)" what we are really saying is that although we don't know if "X" is true or false, we are choosing to act on the presumption that "X" is true (or false).

Sure, you have faith in Bob's ability to overcome his drug addiction and after 3 years he is clean. Your faith invested in Bob was justified and turned out true. And then your faith in God to save the life of Bob's child as it is getting cancer treatment in a hospital turns out to be wrong because she dies. So your faith was in error.

Faith is more about how we create, manipulate, and manage an illusion about reality to help cope with uncertainty we encounter. It could be basic life anxiety or life and death. It's a coping strategy, and beliefs will be used to help us experience" the illusion we prefer.

 

[F1fan]

I have no way of assessing their credibility, and no reason to do so. I would simply let the statements stand as they are: "Jim says ...".
I have no reason to watch such a show. But if I did watch it, again, I would just let it be what it is. A tv show meant to entertain.

You're avoiding my challenge with this irrelevant tangent.

I don't go about the world assessing what's real and true, and what isn't. Especially in the minds of others.

So you haven't pushed back against trump supporters in various political discussions? I've seen you challenge their truth claims, so you've done some assessing of what it true and what isn't.

I can nearly always just let things be what they are at the moment. Including the minds of others.

Unless an atheist disputes a belief in God, yes?

The degree of intensity of one's belief varies by person. I suspect the more frightened one is of being found "wrong" the more adamantly they will insist they are right. "Plausibility" is mostly irrelevant.

Right, studies have shown that once a person is committed to the truth of an idea it is tied to their competency as a thinker and judge. We see this when prosecutors resist releasing convicted people even after exculpatory evidence is revealed. The more a person is invested in an idea being true the more they will defend it. Trump's big lie is another example. He probably really thinks he won.

No human has such a rigorous thinking process that they can claim to be inerrant. Though many still do. Or secretly believe it.

This would apply to people who are adamant their beliefs are true even if implausible and lack evidence, like theists. How many theists can admit their religious belief might be in error?

There is no right way or wrong way to 'believe'. It's an internal choice. One I choose to avoid as much as possible.

False. Belief is a judgment we humans make, and we can either be sloppy in how we believe or we can apply a high standard to our judgments. Even when we are introduced to an idea and asked to assess and judge it we are not obligated to make any conclusion. If someone asked us of some complicated hypothesis in science is sound and we don't know anything about it, our only rational position is "no judgment". Neutral. No belief on the matter.

 

[PureX]

Then that is a bias, and a bias the self is likely not aware of having. You're saying the judgment is about the self when it should be about the evidence of an idea. You are correct when ideas are tied to identity or society because then there is a bias that can be either conscious or subconscious. People would rather belong rather then be correct. There are studies in psychology that demonstrate people will conform to a wrong idea rather then be an outcast.

If you are on a jury and assessing the evidence presented it needs to be considered objectively. We are well aware of bias and prejudice, which is one reason there was concern about the majority white jury in the Chauvin case. As we know this did not affect the guilty on all three counts verdicts.

Everything we humans think is biased. Everything. Because the mechanism doing the thinking is limited, and those limitations are a bias. There is no overcoming this with logic and reason and evidence. Logic, reason, and evidence are also a bias. None of us are ever going to be able to know that we are 'right' without a bias. We can only be right relative to the limitations of our biases.

This isn't true across the board.

Nothing is true across the board. And we can't even see 'across the board'. It's so much bigger than our intellectual vision can transit.

Is it true objectively? No.

Nothing is true objectively. Because truth is a subjective value assessment.

Sure, you have faith in Bob's ability to overcome his drug addiction and after 3 years he is clean. Your faith invested in Bob was justified and turned out true. And then your faith in God to save the life of Bob's child as it is getting cancer treatment in a hospital turns out to be wrong because she dies. So your faith was in error.

Faith isn't about eliminating error. It's about providing positive function in the face of the unknown?

Faith is more about how we create, manipulate, and manage an illusion about reality to help cope with uncertainty we encounter. It could be basic life anxiety or life and death. It's a coping strategy, and beliefs will be used to help us experience" the illusion we prefer.

Faith and belief are two very different things. So different, in fact, that they tend to negate each other. When faith becomes belief it's not faith, anymore.

 

[PureX]

You're avoiding my challenge with this irrelevant tangent.

It was a moot "challenge". I can't know and don't care what Jim saw last night. I would not bother to try an assess the validity to statements that I can't know and don't care about. I would simply let the statements stand as being nothing more or less than what they are.

So you haven't pushed back against trump supporters in various political discussions? I've seen you challenge their truth claims, so you've done some assessing of what it true and what isn't.

Challenging isn't assessing. Also, if "Jim" wants to tell us what he saw last night, we are free, then the share what we are seeing, today.

Unless an atheist disputes a belief in God, yes?

I am profoundly agnostic. I don't have any reason to dispute someone not 'believing in' God/gods. When I debate with atheists it's because they are so often pompous arses proclaiming themselves to be logical, critical, skeptical, thinkers when they are none of those things. In fact, they (some) are the mirror image of the cult-like religious zealots that they are so determined to paint and slander their 'theist enemies' with. The truth is that I just don't suffer fools, well. Its not about who I think is right about God. Because I have no idea.

Right, studies have shown that once a person is committed to the truth of an idea it is tied to their competency as a thinker and judge. We see this when prosecutors resist releasing convicted people even after exculpatory evidence is revealed. The more a person is invested in an idea being true the more they will defend it. Trump's big lie is another example. He probably really thinks he won.

People are ego-maniacal idiots. Did we really need a study to tell is that?

This would apply to people who are adamant their beliefs are true even if implausible and lack evidence, like theists. How many theists can admit their religious belief might be in error?

Theists have FAR MORE EVIDENCE for their gods than atheists have against them. Since atheists have no evidence whatever, even by their own admission. A theist can pray to his God for rain, and get rain, eventually, at least sometimes. The atheist can only sit in the sun and sputter about how righteously skeptical he is. What a idiot!

Belief is a judgment we humans make, and we can either be sloppy in how we believe or we can apply a high standard to our judgments.

It doesn't matter how we arrive at what we choose to believe because what we're really choosing to believe is that we are right. And we really have no way of knowing that with any unbiased authority. That's why I prefer to avoid falling into a state of belief as much as possible.

Even when we are introduced to an idea and asked to assess and judge it we are not obligated to make any conclusion. If someone asked us of some complicated hypothesis in science is sound and we don't know anything about it, our only rational position is "no judgment". Neutral. No belief on the matter.

True, but that does not necessarily mean we ought not respond ... loudly, ... and even with malice. If we think the other guy is a tool. (I don't mean you, by the way. I sense that you have a sense of humor and an open mind about these things.)

 

[F1fan]

Everything we humans think is biased. Everything.

Including how a mother thinks of her new born? It's biased, not genuine and true?

Perhaps your statement here is certainly biased.

Because the mechanism doing the thinking is limited, and those limitations are a bias.

No, limitations are just a limitation. Bias is a choice. We aren't biased in not being able to see infrared light, it's just a limitation. Contempt against science is a bias.

There is no overcoming this with logic and reason and evidence. Logic, reason, and evidence are also a bias. None of us are ever going to be able to know that we are 'right' without a bias. We can only be right relative to the limitations of our biases.

I think what you are attempting here is in essence "we can't know everything, therefore if we believe in God we cannot know we are wrong" type thinking. You're looking for excuses here. Our brains and thinking has limits, but we can still use our brains to understand a great deal of what is true about reality and what isn't.

Nothing is true across the board. And we can't even see 'across the board'. It's so much bigger than our intellectual vision can transit.
Nothing is true objectively. Because truth is a subjective value assessment.

Just more fuzziness here, "we can't know anything, let me believe my irrational concepts because maybe I'm right" type thinking. The thing is we humans can be certain of many things. Part of intellect is having the discipline to know our limits and how to reason objectively. I know you hate this, but you can't argue to sabotage a precision of thinking just to create a safe space for religious belief.

Faith isn't about eliminating error. It's about providing positive function in the face of the unknown?

It's a risk. To invest faith is a dubious outcome might make facing a tragedy even harder. If you have faith that God will save your son and the kid dies, well, did god betray you or what? Deeper anguish can ensue.

Faith and belief are two very different things. So different, in fact, that they tend to negate each other. When faith becomes belief it's not faith, anymore.

Even faith has at least two different definitions. But in any case religious faith is a decision to commit to an idea or outcome that is not reasoned, and is even unlikely true. That is the function, to justify a poor decision.

 

[Fool]

I think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying or I've said it poorly.
Both belief and knowledge contain information and both can contain false information in that they convey information that does not correlate with reality.
Belief is information in that what I believe may inform you of why I act the way I act for example. Anything that informs in some manner is information.


This isn't true, depending on how your defining the term "fact". For instance, it may be a fact that I'm imagining things. However if facts are only those things which are confined to reality then nobody would be able to imagine anything. In other words, nobody would be able to not think realistically. Yet we know that isn't a fact.
As I've pointed out, information is anything that informs. If I imagine seeing purple dragons that informs you of what I am imagining even though that information may not conform to our reality as being realistic. The information is real. What it conveys is an unrealistic experience.


Okay, and the only way to do that is to be "informed" of #1 What is reality and #2 What someone's belief is. Both of these things are conveyances of information.

yes, knowing what someone believes is a fact, is knowledge. but beliefs are not facts in themselves. knowing what someone believes is observable in reality. they tell you they believe this or that. believing something that can't be observed in reality isn't a fact. so the believer can imagine anything. look at all the people with delusions, psychosis. thats a fact. they exist. they hold these beliefs to be true, they consider them knowledge, but only in that respect are they false. knowing something and believing in something are not the same thing; unless it can be observed, experienced by self in reality it isn't real. it's simply imagination. that imagination will never mature without questioning, without testing against reality.

it's called science for a reason. it literally means knowledge

 

[setarcos]

believing something that can't be observed in reality isn't a fact.

Again, this requires agreeing upon a definition of what a fact is. Facts generally speaking are truths about reality. Agreed? However facts are comments on the state a particular event or item is in but whether or not the event or item is in a particular state does not dictate whether or not it is a fact that it is in that condition. Your mistaking the belief as fact for the realization of that belief as fact.
It can certainly be a fact that I can imagine something unrealistic. It is also a fact that my belief is wrong because it is not realistic.

look at all the people with delusions, psychosis. thats a fact. they exist.

As I've said above.

knowing something and believing in something are not the same thing

That depends on how you define "knowing". I would imagine it to be quite hard to believe something isn't true if you know that it is. All else being equal, if you know it is raining because you are standing in the rain then it is impossible to believe it isn't raining when your belief is informed by your knowing. Now if some how it isn't raining but you think your experiencing rain then your knowing is deluded and consequently your belief which is informed by your knowing is also deluded. Back to what you know is what you believe.

unless it can be observed, experienced by self in reality it isn't real

Again we need to define our terms or even confine them to particular instances. The experience is very real to the deluded. Even though the event is not existent in reality. The delusion is real and imparts real information to the deluded. Its just that the information imparted does not conform to reality. That isn't to say that the delusion couldn't happen because it doesn't conform to reality because it did happen and it did happen in reality - the delusion that is.
Incidentally much of what we know about reality through modern science cannot be experienced by the self, nor observed directly. So in that sense reality defines its own existence quite apart from our help in doing so.

it's called science for a reason. it literally means knowledge

It sure is.