Belief and Knowledge

[Curious George]

The phrase "think they have knowledge" is nonsense, if knowledge is what they think.

.

But it isn't you also require it to her true so knowledge only happens to be what they think some of the time....under what you have detailed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I'm saying is that having a true belief is more significantly 'knowledge' than having a justified belief.

Irrelevant hair-splitting, since both are required.

 

[Falvlun]

I see it the other way around, but that is not my belief lol.

Do you think that people cannot change their beliefs?
I would think your own experience would deny that: surely you no longer believe that Santa Claus exists.

 

[viole]

What is belief?

What is knowledge?

What, if any, is the relation between them?

Knowledge stands between belief and certainty. I, for intance, believe that there is life on other planets, but I have no knowledge that it is the case.

I also know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, but I have no certainty that it is the case. Same with God, I know He does not exist, but I have no certainty that it is the case.

And the three things are mutually exclusive. Especially the first two. It would be silly to say that I believe that there is life on other planets if I had knowledge that it is indeed the case.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

What is belief?

What is knowledge?

What, if any, is the relation between them?

Faith is more like Knows' big brother in Heaven. Faith is like a theory.

 

[Falvlun]

Knowledge is justified true belief.

What are your thoughts on the Gettier Problems?

 

[Falvlun]

Knowledge stands between belief and certainty. I, for intance, believe that there is life on other planets, but I have no knowledge that it is the case.

I also know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, but I have no certainty that it is the case. Same with God, I know He does not exist, but I have no certainty that it is the case.

And the three things are mutually exclusive. Especially the first two. It would be silly to say that I believe that there is life on other planets if I had knowledge that it is indeed the case.

Ciao

- viole

You haven't demonstrated mutual exclusivity; you've only showed the differences between them. You also really haven't explained the difference between belief and knowledge; you've just given an example of when you would use each.

Would it be silly to say that I have a dog, when it is actually a pit bull?

 

[viole]

You haven't demonstrated mutual exclusivity; you've only showed the differences between them. You also really haven't explained the difference between belief and knowledge; you've just given an example of when you would use each.

Would it be silly to say that I have a dog, when it is actually a pit bull?

No. because a pit bull is a dog.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Falvlun]

To a large extent, belief is a statement of personal inclinations, while knowledge is supposed to be calibrated by external parameters and to be subject to revision according to new facts or learning.

The two superimpose when there are no external data available or when the subject matter is very personal in nature.

Very good, Luis. This is pretty air tight, and is an explanation I haven't seen before.

You wouldn't say that beliefs preclude external justification, would you?

 

[Falvlun]

No. because a pit bull is a dog.

Ciao

- viole

Likewise, if knowledge is a type of belief, it wouldn't be silly to call it a belief.

 

[viole]

Likewise, if knowledge is a type of belief, it wouldn't be silly to call it a belief.

Ok, I believe a dog is a mammal.

Happy?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Falvlun]

We are certain of almost nothing.

Agreed. But that brings me back to my question: what distinguishes belief from knowledge?

 

[LuisDantas]

Very good, Luis. This is pretty air tight, and is an explanation I haven't seen before.

You wouldn't say that beliefs preclude external justification, would you?

No, I would not. I will say that some matters are indeed personal in nature and that this should not be perceived as inherently problematic.

 

[Falvlun]

@9-10ths_Penguin I agree that knowledge is a subset a belief. The ways we "know" things come from experience/observation, tradition, or reason, but I think modern humanity stripped down the tradition category a lot to distinguish "knowledge" from belief or faith.

That's a good observation. Before "because my dad said so, and my grandad said so, and my great grandad said so" was an accepted justification. Not so much now. Perhaps that's because of the Age of Information: knowledge is changing more quickly, so what our parents and grandparents believed is more likely to be found untrue than it was when things took centuries to change.

 

[1137]

Agreed. But that brings me back to my question: what distinguishes belief from knowledge?

Knowledge is closer to certainty I'd say. I'm more certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, which I know, than that I'll marry my SO, which I very very highly believe.

 

[Falvlun]

I would say that knowledge is awareness of proven fact; that there is no possibility that anything else is 'true.'

Belief is awareness that something is probably true, based upon whatever evidence is available.

Faith is the willingness to act upon belief; to act as if one's belief reaches all the way to 'knowledge' even when it doesn't.

Example:

I believe that the sun is shining right now; the sky is blue, I feel the warmth of it through the window, I see the light. However...
I KNOW that it was shining around eight minutes ago. There is no possibility that it was not. There is, however a possibility (though infinitesimally slight) that it blew up sometime within the last eight minutes.
Because I have faith that the sun is shining right now, I'll put sunblock on and go dead head my daffodils.

In other words, 'knowledge' is a whole 'nuther level of awareness than 'belief' is, and most of our lives are lived according to what we believe rather than what we 'know.

Yes...if you define 'certain' as 'there is no possibility that you are wrong about this." Indeed, there is precious little that we do actually KNOW, any of us.

So knowledge are beliefs with no possibility of being false. both your examples involved statements about events that happened in the past.

While I do sympathize with agnostic tendencies, I don't particularly find it practical.

Technically, I agree: we can be certain of very few things and if certainty is the hallmark of knowledge, then by extension, we can know very few things.

But practically, that doesn't really seem to jive with how we use the concept of knowledge: we seem to know a lot. We know a bunch of scienc-y stuff (biology, chemistry, physics, etc), we know geography, we know how to change a tire, we know that our mom loves us (if we are fortunate), etc.

We talk about knowing a lot of things.

 

[Falvlun]

Knowledge is closer to certainty I'd say. I'm more certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, which I know, than that I'll marry my SO, which I very very highly believe.

I think that's a reasonable way of looking at it, without sacrificing practicality.

 

[Falvlun]

Awareness, so intent. A genuine attitude is unaware and unintended.

That's a useful distinction.

Ontology is the craft (some call it study) of posing things to be the case (true). Posing, like artists with their sketch doll, but we do it in thought. In doing that, we use the verb "to be" and its derivatives. We do it in speaking, but we also do it in thought, and without thought. We pose the world "to be."

Imagine yourself invested with, for instance, a fear of something, it doesn't matter what. All the things that can be proposed about that situation in words are things that can be believed. Of those things that can be proposed, some will be true and some will not. That you know which are true are not doesn't matter [and can even be a contradiction]. If they appear to be the case, you'll believe them. But of all the things you believe, the ones that are true are knowledge*. You don't have to know which are knowledge--to you, knowledge and belief may appear identical. Knowledge will be the belief that is posed "to be," in thought, and without thought. Propositions: You are afraid. Fear has gripped you. You are going to run. The monster is chasing you. These propositions, as they represent the world (in thought), are worded objectively to be the case, that are the case, and so we house them in the verb "to be."

You see, it's not really about you, or me, or any of us. We house them in the verb "to be" because we cannot but have identified truth about them that is beyond us. They are the world to us.

*The case of "fiction" was devised just for the ability to pose things as if true. But the case of "real" is the case where the truth of a thing is beyond us.

This was really well explained.

It seems to me, based on this and your subsequent posts, that you view knowledge as a belief that is true (corresponds with reality). Why or how we believe it doesn't particularly matter, in relation to its status as knowledge.

You then take a slightly unexpected turn, when you state that knowledge will be the belief that is posed "to be" (excepting fiction.) Is this a statement of relativity? Essentially, our perception shapes reality?

I don't find it practical to see the world that way. Certainty has inherent doubt, i.e. no truth value.

That's a great point. We can be certain, without something actually being the case.

 

[dianaiad]

So knowledge are beliefs with no possibility of being false. both your examples involved statements about events that happened in the past.

Pretty much, yes, though I think that there might be examples of 'knowledge' involving things that are present. For instance, if I walk outside in a moment, get in the car and drive to the California poppy reserve and see the incredible bloom everybody is reporting, I will then KNOW that the poppies are indeed blooming. When I see them. At the moment, though....I simply believe they are, and have faith enough that they are that I will haul my camera along with me on that twenty mile trip.

While I do sympathize with agnostic tendencies, I don't particularly find it practical.

Technically, I agree: we can be certain of very few things and if certainty is the hallmark of knowledge, then by extension, we can know very few things.

But practically, that doesn't really seem to jive with how we use the concept of knowledge: we seem to know a lot. We know a bunch of scienc-y stuff (biology, chemistry, physics, etc), we know geography, we know how to change a tire, we know that our mom loves us (if we are fortunate), etc.

We talk about knowing a lot of things.

True...and many of us have beliefs so strong that they feel very much like knowledge. However, I think it's important (especially when we are talking about religion and philosophy) to understand that there is a difference.

 

[Falvlun]

If it was false, it was never knowledge.

Just because someone judges some belief to be knowledge doesn't mean that it necessarily is knowledge. People's judgements are sometimes mistaken.

I think this is problematic for me because it retroactively changes what was meant at the time something was considered true.

How can we ever know that we know something?

I think there's at least two senses of knowledge at play:

The philosophical version of knowledge must be true. If it's not true, it's not knowledge.

The psychological version of knowledge is belief that something is true, with a high degree of certainty (thanks to @1137 for that adjustment re certainty).