Believing Vs Knowing

[Spirit of Light]

Oh, I understand your position - it's simply wrong and begging the question. There is no distinction between belief and knowledge. They are synonymous. If you truly believe something, then you know it to be true. And if you know something, you believe it to be true.

Those who wish to draw a distinction between these terms aren't intellectually honest - but instead set out to redefine terms in favor of their beliefs vs other people's beliefs.

Knowledge involves belief. It is a necessary part of knowing, for no one can know something unless he believes it. 2) A person can only know things that are true. An individual can think she knows something to be true but, in fact, be wrong. 3) A person can believe something to be true, that is in fact true, but it wouldn’t constitute knowledge if it lacks proper justification. Knowledge involves some form of confirmation or evidence.

 

[iam1me]

Knowledge involves belief. It is a necessary part of knowing, for no one can know something unless he believes it. 2) A person can only know things that are true. An individual can think she knows something to be true but, in fact, be wrong. 3) A person can believe something to be true, that is in fact true, but it wouldn’t constitute knowledge if it lacks proper justification. Knowledge involves some form of confirmation or evidence.

First off, as I have noted to others, these qualities of knowledge you assert are a matter of philosophy rather than language.

That said, let us explore this a little closer. You assert on point #2 that A person can THINK they know something, but that whether or not it qualifies as knowledge is dependent upon it actually being true.

Justifying a belief is good - but there is little to nothing that we can prove to be true beyond things we define ourselves (such as in mathematics).

As such, even if we accepted that the essential quality that defines knowledge is that it is true - it simply becomes impractical to speak of knowledge since we cannot prove that our justified beliefs are true.

Newtonian Physics, for instance, must be rejected as ever having been knowledge in so far as it has been superseded by Relativity.

Indeed, science never proves anything, but only disproves hypotheses and theories. As such, based upon your proposed understanding of knowledge, science can only be said to provide us with justified beliefs that may or may not be knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry you can't substantiate your views

Projection. Of course I can. You are not worth my time.

 

[Spirit of Light]

First off, as I have noted to others, these qualities of knowledge you assert are a matter of philosophy rather than language.

That said, let us explore this a little closer. You assert on point #2 that A person can THINK they know something, but that whether or not it qualifies as knowledge is dependent upon it actually being true.

Justifying a belief is good - but there is little to nothing that we can prove to be true beyond things we define ourselves (such as in mathematics).

As such, even if we accepted that the essential quality that defines knowledge is that it is true - it simply becomes impractical to speak of knowledge since we cannot prove that our justified beliefs are true.

Newtonian Physics, for instance, must be rejected as ever having been knowledge in so far as it has been superseded by Relativity.

Indeed, science never proves anything, but only disproves hypotheses and theories. As such, based upon your proposed understanding of knowledge, science can only be said to provide us with justified beliefs that may or may not be knowledge.

To know something to be facts means you can use science an math to prove that you are right.
But knowledge in it self can be knowing what you see in the nature is there, but you can for example not prove that a leaf is green if it lack sunlight, because the reason you see a leaf as green is the reflective sunlight, and in this case it is only the green sun rays that is reflected in to your eyes, But in fact the leaf could have an other color after all, example if you use infra red light the color change, but it is still the same leaf, meaning you can prove it is a leaf,but you can not prove the exact color
But you can belive it to be green. so belief and knowlede does not always go hand in hand

 

[iam1me]

To know something to be facts means you can use science an math to prove that you are right.

We can prove things in math because we define the axioms of the philosophy and work from there. It is purely intellectual and does not make any truth claims about anything outside of itself.

The same cannot be said of science or really any other field of study. There are no proofs in science - only well tested theories that we accept because no one has been able to disprove them.

Indeed, it is this very quality that scientific philosophers love about science: it's ability to continually adapt to the evidence. This is lost on the laity of science, however, who turn around and claim that the current view of science is absolute fact.

 

[Spirit of Light]

We can prove things in math because we define the axioms of the philosophy and work from there. It is purely intellectual and does not make any truth claims about anything outside of itself.

The same cannot be said of science or really any other field of study. There are no proofs in science - only well tested theories that we accept because no one has been able to disprove them.

Indeed, it is this very quality that scientific philosophers love about science: it's ability to continually adapt to the evidence. This is lost on the laity of science, however, who turn around and claim that the current view of science is absolute fact.

I do not think you can state that something is absolutly fact in this physical world, because it is ever changing, even what you see as a solid object is not solid at all when we use a microscope, then suddenly an object become full of empty space.
In religion there is wisdom, there is belief but as normal human beings it is very difficult to prove that there is one ultimate truth. but it is one truth at the top, the problem is that to prove it you must first have the inner wisdom to understand what truth actually is.
So to believe something is on the path to knowing, but they are not same.

 

[iam1me]

I do not think you can state that something is absolutly fact in this physical world, because it is ever changing, even what you see as a solid object is not solid at all when we use a microscope, then suddenly an object become full of empty space.
In religion there is wisdom, there is belief but as normal human beings it is very difficult to prove that there is one ultimate truth. but it is one truth at the top, the problem is that to prove it you must first have the inner wisdom to understand what truth actually is.
So to believe something is on the path to knowing, but they are not same.

Given your earlier qualifications of what you believe constitutes as wisdom, If you cannot find facts, if you can't prove your claims (not merely justify them) Then knowledge becomes an unattainable ideal. For even if you hit upon the truth, you cannot objectively declare it to be knowledge, no matter how well it stands up scrutiny or how useful it is.

Therefore, under this philosophy, the only practical thing we can talk about are justified and unjustified beliefs. Either may or may not be knowledge, and neither can be shown to be knowledge.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Given your earlier qualifications of what you believe constitutes as wisdom, If you cannot find facts, if you can't prove your claims (not merely justify them) Then knowledge becomes an unattainable ideal. For even if you hit upon the truth, you cannot objectively declare it to be knowledge, no matter how well it stands up scrutiny or how useful it is.

Therefore, under this philosophy, the only practical thing we can talk about are justified and unjustified beliefs. Either may or may not be knowledge, and neither can be shown to be knowledge.

So if i understand ou correctly,you are the only one who are correct ? non of the others who you talked with in this thread can be correct?

 

[iam1me]

So if i understand ou correctly,you are the only one who are correct ? non of the others who you talked with in this thread can be correct?

First off, my replies to you have said nothing of the sort - I've merely taken your philosophical proposals on how we might differentiate knowledge and belief and taken it to its logical conclusion. I didn't say the conclusion was good or bad.

Secondly, The truth of the matter is that as far as language goes, knowledge and belief are synonymous. There are those, like yourself, who attempt to develop a philosophy that redefines these terms. You may use those definitions within the context of the philosophy in question, but that says nothing about what the terms mean in the vernacular. It is this point that so many trip over.

 

[Spirit of Light]

First off, my replies to you have said nothing of the sort - I've merely taken your philosophical proposals on how we might differentiate knowledge and belief and taken it to its logical conclusion. I didn't say the conclusion was good or bad.

Secondly, The truth of the matter is that as far as language goes, knowledge and belief are synonymous. There are those, like yourself, who attempt to develop a philosophy that redefines these terms. You may use those definitions within the context of the philosophy in question, but that says nothing about what the terms mean in the vernacular. It is this point that so many trip over.

The philosophy i follows come from buddhism, not something i personally developed .

 

[iam1me]

The philosophy i follows come from buddhism, not something i personally developed .

That's fine, but it is still a philosophical/religious definition that is distinct from the vernacular usage of the term.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

.

View attachment 27902 ​

At what point does believing something change into knowing it?

..

imo, when you can demonstrate it.