Belief and Knowledge

[Falvlun]

A belief is an idea or principle which we judge to be true. Lives are routinely sacrificed based simply on what people believe. Our brains are attachment machines, attaching not just to people and places, but to ideas. And not just in a coldly rational manner.

Our brains become intimately emotionally entangled with ideas we come to believe are true, and emotionally allergic to ideas we believe to be false. This emotional dimension to our rational judgment explains a gamut of measurable biases that show just how unlike computers our minds are.

Good imagery here, describing the bias inherent in what we choose to believe.

Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three types: personal knowledge, procedural knowledge, and propositional knowledge. The primary concern of epistemology is propositional knowledge, but contrasting this with other types of knowledge can help in clarifying precisely what it is that epistemologists are discussing.

You're the first to bring up these other types of knowledge.

Personal knowledge: also known as "knowledge by acquaintance" is knowledge gained by personally experiencing something. It could be considered a method of obtaining propositional knowledge.

Procedural knowledge: this is knowledge of how to do things. It is our collection of skills.

Propositional knowledge: this is the sort of knowledge that says "this is the case". It is our collection of facts.

All paraphrased from this site: Theory of Knowledge

The tripartite theory analyses knowledge as justified true belief, is widely used as a working model, even though most philosophers recognize that it has serious difficulties.

The closest thing to a rival to the tripartite theory is infallibilism, which suggests that knowledge requires absolute certainty, as opposed to belief or opinion about which there is more doubt.

The two concepts do overlap, but there's something about belief which distinguishes it from knowledge. I think that there are elements of belief where it overlaps with emotion and imagination, as opposed to rationalism and realism, which are the focus of knowledge.

I like the characterization of the JTB definition as a "working model". It defiantly is useful, as long as we keep in mind it may not tell the full story.

I didn't know of infallibility, but when I began this thread, that was essentially how I figured people, in practice, differentiated between knowledge and belief. I think it's still a primary distinction, but I've softened from the idea that absolute certainty is required for knowledge. I think a high degree of certainty is sufficient.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I don't think it does change what was meant. The person who said "I know ______" or "he knows ______" really did sincerely mean it; even if he proves to be mistaken later, what they meant at the time doesn't change.

How can we ever know that we know something?

Know perfectly that we know? It seems like we can't, AFAICT. Human beings aren't omniscient.

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).

I think both resolve into your "philosophical" definition if we realize that when we make statements, we're expressing our judgements.

When someone thinks that something is true to a high degree of certainty, they've concluded based on their judgement that they know it, as per the "philosophical" definition.

 

[Willamena]

How can we ever know that we know something?

To paraphrase Yoda, "Know. Or don't. There is no 'know you know'."

 

[Willamena]

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.

And justified, though its being true is the salient part.

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?

It's not intended as such, no. The verb "to be" was developed just to express the case of reality.

Perception shapes reality, but that's psychology, not relativity. Relativity is that each individual or group has a unique perspective. What I said, on my soap box, I intended to represent an absolute and universal case, i.e. the same for everybody.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What are your thoughts on the Gettier Problems?

Wittgenstein might have called them 'language games' and I might agree, as I do feel most problems of philosophy are actually problems of language.

I might also say that every rule has an exception.

Mostly, I would say it in an elusive thing to try to define knowledge, but this seems to be the best we have at the moment.

 

[psychoslice]

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.

Of course people change their beliefs, they change from one prison to another, where as I like to just go with the flow, not clinging to any belief, I see thing and I say, that makes sense, but tomorrow I may change my mind.

Many who cling to beliefs will fight over their beliefs, if their right or wrong, beliefs are of the ego, wisdom is of the intelligence.

 

[idea]

Of course people change their beliefs, they change from one prison to another, where as I like to just go with the flow, not clinging to any belief, I see thing and I say, that makes sense, but tomorrow I may change my mind.

Many who cling to beliefs will fight over their beliefs, if their right or wrong, beliefs are of the ego, wisdom is of the intelligence.

Yes, but will you ever change your belief about not clinging to beliefs? and if you are not willing to cling to any beliefs, isn't that a belief in and of itself?

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, but will you ever change your belief about not clinging to beliefs? and if you are not willing to cling to any beliefs, isn't that a belief in and of itself?

No because I don't have a belief, I am trying to take the belief away, its not needed, we don't say we believe that the sun will rise, it just does. Now lets say you believe i a god, and that is your belief, so now you have imprisoned yourself into something you really don't know.

 

[idea]

No because I don't have a belief, I am trying to take the belief away, its not needed, we don't say we believe that the sun will rise, it just does. Now lets say you believe i a god, and that is your belief, so now you have imprisoned yourself into something you really don't know.

You believe in being a fence sitter, you believe in not making commitments, you believe in agnosticism... nothing wrong with that, but it is a belief of sorts.

 

[psychoslice]

You believe in being a fence sitter, you believe in not making commitments, you believe in agnosticism... nothing wrong with that, but it is a belief of sorts.

Nothing wrong in having no beliefs either, you should try it, its total freedom.

 

[Segev Moran]

What is belief?

I Would divide it into the following:

"Spiritual" belief : Believing something without any *scientific evidence for it to be true (Will usually be nicked name as "Faith"... ) (For example: I Believe I can move objects with my mind )
"Probable belief": Assuming something to be true based on probability. (For example, I believe a car driving 120 mph crashing into a person will kill him)
"Social belief": We usually tend to believe our closest more easily than strangers.
"Authority belief" We will usually believe a person of "authority" over "non authorized" person. (Example: Believing a doctor's diagnosis over a random person on the street)

You get the picture i guess...
So at the end, Belief is something subjective when it comes to reality. In its "Dictionary" format, Belief is the assumption something is true.

*scientific evidence : Demonstrable / Measurable / Observable ETC....

What is knowledge?

Knowledge, is assuming something based on demonstrable and repeatable evidence.
Knowledge is based on the most probable assumption.
Knowledge is dynamic and expandable.

What, if any, is the relation between them?

I would say that Belief, SHOULD be based on what you know, and not about what you think you know.
The more you know, The easier it gets to recognize the most probable beliefs than the least ones.

Believe me... I know

 

[Nakosis]

I think this is a really practical approach.

Would you consider knowledge a "belief you feel comfortable proving to someone else"; you just labeled it "something" above.

Yes, the more often I can prove it to someone else the more certain I am about it. It's not fool proof but it's the best I've been able to come up with.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think it does change what was meant. The person who said "I know ______" or "he knows ______" really did sincerely mean it; even if he proves to be mistaken later, what they meant at the time doesn't change

Can you say "That was knowledge at the time."?

Know perfectly that we know? It seems like we can't, AFAICT. Human beings aren't omniscient.

Then it seems like "true" can't be the criteria for knowledge. Knowledge is a belief that is justified and currently "believed to be true". Perhaps that's implied?

I think both resolve into your "philosophical" definition if we realize that when we make statements, we're expressing our judgements.

When someone thinks that something is true to a high degree of certainty, they've concluded based on their judgement that they know it, as per the "philosophical" definition.

The philosophical definition seems to be a bit more rigid than that: it's not enough for someone to think that something is true; it actually must be true (to be considered knowledge).

 

[Falvlun]

To paraphrase Yoda, "Know. Or don't. There is no 'know you know'."

The problem is that we do both simultaneously.

We say "I know" but actually we "don't know" because we were wrong about something being true.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course people change their beliefs, they change from one prison to another, where as I like to just go with the flow, not clinging to any belief, I see thing and I say, that makes sense, but tomorrow I may change my mind.

Many who cling to beliefs will fight over their beliefs, if their right or wrong, beliefs are of the ego, wisdom is of the intelligence.

If people can change their beliefs, then belief aren't a prison. They are no different than "going with the flow".

Your beef is people who "cling to beliefs", not belief in and of itself.

 

[Falvlun]

Nothing wrong in having no beliefs either, you should try it, its total freedom.

It's also delusion to believe that you have no beliefs.

Your political beliefs are rather consistent, by the way. Maybe it's time to stop clinging to these particular ones and adopt some more liberal ones for a change of pace.

 

[Falvlun]

Wittgenstein might have called them 'language games' and I might agree, as I do feel most problems of philosophy are actually problems of language.

I might also say that every rule has an exception.

Mostly, I would say it in an elusive thing to try to define knowledge, but this seems to be the best we have at the moment.

That's a fair assessment.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not intended as such, no. The verb "to be" was developed just to express the case of reality.

Perception shapes reality, but that's psychology, not relativity. Relativity is that each individual or group has a unique perspective. What I said, on my soap box, I intended to represent an absolute and universal case, i.e. the same for everybody.

Ok, but "to be" can also express future possibilities.

It can also, unintentionally, express falsehoods about reality.

 

[psychoslice]

If people can change their beliefs, then belief aren't a prison. They are no different than "going with the flow".

Your beef is people who "cling to beliefs", not belief in and of itself.

Well so what, many are clinging to their beliefs, my god can't you see that.

 

[psychoslice]

It's also delusion to believe that you have no beliefs.

Your political beliefs are rather consistent, by the way. Maybe it's time to stop clinging to these particular ones and adopt some more liberal ones for a change of pace.

That doesn't mean I have beliefs in the political, its what I see for now, and I share what I see, things could change and I will change with that flow, everything I have said here i also don't believe, I just say it, I have no choice but to say it.