what's the difference between "knowledge" and "belief"?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What is a "belief"? which are its characteristics? What is "knowledge"
What exactly is the difference between both of them?

In every discussion people take for granted an incredible amount of stuff, like that the particular POV everybody have is the best, or truer, or more realistic, and other POV's are naïve, obtuse, even stupid.

This is of course true for the JREF crowd but also for other crowds, like religious groups. Everyone convinced about their beliefs being actual knowledge, while others are not.

In order to "proof" that something is actually a piece of knowledge and not a belief several arguments take in place; like that if some belief is true (it correspond with facts) then it constitutes a piece of knowledge (ceasing to be a "mere" belief). A similar process occurs when looking for evidence supporting (or not) a particular belief.

What is your stance? What do you think? Can you clearly state the difference between such states?






(rant mode) It is utterly absurd to put "religion" at the same sublevel than "philosophy". It implies they are more or less about the same thing, which is, IMO, a very ignorant POV. If anything, philosophy should be in its own sub forum, or, with science and mathematics (science is daughter of philosophy, in fact, science is nothing but a set of tools used by naturalist philosophers to make experiments).(rant mode off)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think first we need to define the word "belief" very clearly, to avoid the usual equivocation around this subject.

When you use the word "belief" in this context, exactly what do you mean?

 

[phiwum]

What is a "belief"? which are its characteristics? What is "knowledge"
What exactly is the difference between both of them?

In every discussion people take for granted an incredible amount of stuff, like that the particular POV everybody have is the best, or truer, or more realistic, and other POV's are naïve, obtuse, even stupid.

This is of course true for the JREF crowd but also for other crowds, like religious groups. Everyone convinced about their beliefs being actual knowledge, while others are not.

In order to "proof" that something is actually a piece of knowledge and not a belief several arguments take in place; like that if some belief is true (it correspond with facts) then it constitutes a piece of knowledge (ceasing to be a "mere" belief). A similar process occurs when looking for evidence supporting (or not) a particular belief.

What is your stance? What do you think? Can you clearly state the difference between such states?






(rant mode) It is utterly absurd to put "religion" at the same sublevel than "philosophy". It implies they are more or less about the same thing, which is, IMO, a very ignorant POV. If anything, philosophy should be in its own sub forum, or, with science and mathematics (science is daughter of philosophy, in fact, science is nothing but a set of tools used by naturalist philosophers to make experiments).(rant mode off)

Traditionally, knowledge has been characterizes as justified true belief. Gettier famously (and, I think, correctly) showed that justified true belief is not quite a sufficient condition for knowledge, but it's a decent approximation and will probably do well enough in this context.

The difficulty here is, of course, what counts as justification.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Traditionally, knowledge has been characterizes as justified true belief. Gettier famously (and, I think, correctly) showed that justified true belief is not quite a sufficient condition for knowledge, but it's a decent approximation and will probably do well enough in this context.

The difficulty here is, of course, what counts as justification.

Try accurately justified true belief.

 

[phiwum]

Try accurately justified true belief.

Well, insofar as "accurately" is undefined here, yes, that might do it.

Or might not.

 

[Lowpro]

I'm not saying what I am about to present is a "correct" stance but would like to hear responses. I don't expect it to be a perfect summary.

Knowledge and belief are inductive however belief has a presupposed tautology. Knowledge does not.

 

[phiwum]

I'm not saying what I am about to present is a "correct" stance but would like to hear responses. I don't expect it to be a perfect summary.

Knowledge and belief are inductive however belief has a presupposed tautology. Knowledge does not.

That is not at all how philosophers traditionally use the terms.

In order for one to know P, one must believe P.

You're using the term "believe" in a kind of colloquial sense, where one "believes" that which he can't demonstrate (like religion, say). I don't suppose it's bad to think in these terms, but you should be aware that the way you're using words is very different than one might find in the literature.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm not saying what I am about to present is a "correct" stance but would like to hear responses. I don't expect it to be a perfect summary.

Knowledge and belief are inductive however belief has a presupposed tautology. Knowledge does not.

Nothing personal, but this makes just about no sense. Allow me to clear up a few issues.

"Inductive" in epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge) refers to a certain type of reasoning process. Beliefs are not processes. They are ideas, or attitudes towards ideas.

Believing something might, itself, be a neurological process, but that's another matter entirely.

Beliefs might ultimately "rest" on some presupposed idea (tautology or not), but the same can be said for knowledge.

 

[Lowpro]

That is not at all how philosophers traditionally use the terms.

In order for one to know P, one must believe P.

You're using the term "believe" in a kind of colloquial sense, where one "believes" that which he can't demonstrate (like religion, say). I don't suppose it's bad to think in these terms, but you should be aware that the way you're using words is very different than one might find in the literature.

I'm sure that's true. But in my literature knowledge is a moving target; the discourse of evidence and interpretation. It has no tautology, no "truth" rather the incumbent interpretation given evidence, models (and their assumptions) etc. Belief presupposes a tautology that is not a moving target.

I'll give that we may have problems with colloquial use of the wording so if that's true, sorry.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That is not at all how philosophers traditionally use the terms.

In order for one to know P, one must believe P.

You're using the term "believe" in a kind of colloquial sense, where one "believes" that which he can't demonstrate (like religion, say). I don't suppose it's bad to think in these terms, but you should be aware that the way you're using words is very different than one might find in the literature.

This is why, as I said in post 2, for this thread to have any utility whatsoever, the first thing we need is for the OP to define what he means by the terms he's using.

 

[mijopaalmc]

How about a "belief" is "a declarative sentence that an agent asserts as true regardless of its truth or justification independent of the agent's assertion"?

 

[JaysonR]

What exactly is the difference between both of them?

When you hear a noise from around the corner and suspect that someone may be there; that is a belief.

When you turn the corner and find someone standing there, that is knowledge.

When you learn to tell the difference between random building noises and noises made by persons; that is wisdom.

When you see a berry and think that it is harmless, but don't actually know what the berry is or what its side-effects are, and have never seen anyone eat one before, but think that it looks safe to eat; that is belief.

When you eat the berry and find that you don't die; that is knowledge.

When you learn to tell the difference between berries that kill you and berries that sustain you; that is wisdom.

 

[Wowbagger]

Those may be somewhat relative terms. But, there is a good way to distinguish between them when used honestly.

Knowledge implies reliability. That is: Something that seems true enough that it can be used for some productive or practical purpose.

To know if one has knowledge or not, it must be put to a test. The more stringent and skeptical the test, the more solid the knowledge is, if it passes the test.

As you might have guessed: The scientific method is generally considered to be a good manner in which to test the reliability of something claimed to be 'knowledge'.

The most reliable bits of knowledge are those that seem to be true according to multiple lines of investigation, by multiple independent observers.

Belief implies confidence, regardless of reliability. A belief is either something that has not been so tested or even failed various tests; but the person is confident that they must be correct, anyway.

Though, of course, it is easy for someone to claim one is the other, and vice versa, if they are dishonest.

 

[angrysoba]

This is why, as I said in post 2, for this thread to have any utility whatsoever, the first thing we need is for the OP to define what he means by the terms he's using.

I believe that the OP is starting this thread to arrive at a definition.

Hence: "What is a "belief"? which are its characteristics? What is "knowledge"
What exactly is the difference between both of them?"

If the OP knew those things then presumably the OP would then have a definition. If the OP started with definitions of knowledge and belief then asking what the characteristics are would be superfluous.

 

[angrysoba]

Those may be somewhat relative terms. But, there is a good way to distinguish between them when used honestly.

Knowledge implies reliability. That is: Something that seems true enough that it can be used for some productive or practical purpose.

To know if one has knowledge or not, it must be put to a test. The more stringent and skeptical the test, the more solid the knowledge is, if it passes the test.

As you might have guessed: The scientific method is generally considered to be a good manner in which to test the reliability of something claimed to be 'knowledge'.

The most reliable bits of knowledge are those that seem to be true according to multiple lines of investigation, by multiple independent observers.

Belief implies confidence, regardless of reliability. A belief is either something that has not been so tested or even failed various tests; but the person is confident that they must be correct, anyway.

Though, of course, it is easy for someone to claim one is the other, and vice versa, if they are dishonest.

I disagree.

If I say, "I know you are a man" that statement surely implies a greater level of confidence than if I were to say, "I believe you are a man."

In this pair of sentences, the second is surely more tentative than the first.

 

[Wowbagger]

If I say, "I know you are a man" that statement surely implies a greater level of confidence than if I were to say, "I believe you are a man."

You are referring to a different usage of the term "believe", which is a verb that is tentative in nature.

The OP asked the difference between "knowledge" and "belief", implying usage as nouns describing different types of ideas.

Sometimes "bad" means "good". Sometimes "literally" does NOT literally mean literally.

And, some usages of the word "belief" can imply lack of confidence. But, as a noun it typically does imply that. A belief is an idea someone is confident in (or claims to be confident in), regardless of evidence or reliability.



Of course, this assumes the OP was implying different types of ideas. I could be wrong about that.

 

[angrysoba]

You are referring to a different usage of the term "believe", which is a verb that is tentative in nature.

The OP asked the difference between "knowledge" and "belief", implying usage as nouns describing different types of ideas.

Sometimes "bad" means "good". Sometimes "literally" does NOT literally mean literally.

And, some usages of the word "belief" can imply lack of confidence. But, as a noun it typically does imply that. A belief is an idea someone is confident in (or claims to be confident in), regardless of evidence or reliability.



Of course, this assumes the OP was implying different types of ideas. I could be wrong about that.

How about this:

"It is common knowledge that you are a man." - suggests something that many people know. For this to be the case it is presumably something that is true.

"It is a common belief that you are a man." - suggests that most people only think the proposition is true and a statement like this would imply that it is not the case.

However, if I say, "It is my belief that you are a man" I am likely basing this on some form of evidence and yet not asserting it with a lot of confidence.

If I say, "it has come to my knowledge that you are a man" it seems to be said with a lot more confidence.

 

[Wowbagger]

We are needlessly going into the minute depths of language, here. I was responding to what I think the opening post meant.

But, if you want to explore how different meanings emerge in language, I guess we can do that, too:

"It is common knowledge that you are a man." - suggests something that many people know. For this to be the case it is presumably something that is true.

Well, yes. No argument there. The sentence implies that it is reliable to assume the person is a man.

Confidence comes with that. But, the core principle at work is the reliability of the assumption.

Knowledge can be true, even if the person doesn't want to believe it.

"It is a common belief that you are a man." - suggests that most people only think the proposition is true and a statement like this would imply that it is not the case.

To me, it implies: A lot of people are confident that the person is a man, even if the person saying that is not.

Compare to "It is common belief that Adam was the first man."

Clearly, people really do believe this. Even though someone saying this sentence does not necessarily share that belief.

If someone says "I believe Adam was the first man.", that is a statement of confidence. It means "I have a sincere belief, that Adam was the first man."

The sentence "I believe you are a man." could mean the same sort of thing. It could imply "I have a sincere belief, that you are a man." But, it is not usually used that way. Typically, the sentence means: "I suspect you could be a man, but I am not 100% sure."

Language is weird like that. Context makes a difference.

But, this other context does not apply to what I think the opening post was trying to ask.

However, if I say, "It is my belief that you are a man" I am likely basing this on some form of evidence and yet not asserting it with a lot of confidence.

I think they are. They are confident enough to go out and say it, at least. Except, perhaps in the case of sarcasm.

Confidence level can vary, also, depending on the context. "Belief", depending on how it is used, does not necessarily need to be 100%.

"It is my belief that you are a man" could imply, say, 60% confidence.

"I sincerely believe you are a man" could imply 100% confidence. Except in the case of sarcasm, of course.

But, the confidence component is there, even if the statement is not empirically reliable, yet.

If I say, "it has come to my knowledge that you are a man" it seems to be said with a lot more confidence.

Again, knowledge here still implies reliability, which confidence can stem off of. But, confidence level is secondary to reliability.

Beliefs, as a type of idea, generally lack reliability, though they still have the confidence portion, anyway.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I believe that the OP is starting this thread to arrive at a definition.

But the OP also contains the usual equivocation between religious belief and the colloquial use of belief. We cannot define terms if there is more than one definition, dependent on context, and we don't know which context the definition is being asked for.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But the OP also contains the usual equivocation between religious belief and the colloquial use of belief. We cannot define terms if there is more than one definition, dependent on context, and we don't know which context the definition is being asked for.

Cool distinction without a difference, bro!