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

[skepticidal]

I notice that you were careful to refer to this as your personal opinion. Would the meaning change in any way if you had used the word belief?



Do you have evidence for this belief?

Ah. You noticed my tendency to speak or write in factual terms, despite having a pretty limited vocabulary. So, when I stated my opinion, I couldn't be challenged for making a statement of fact which wasn't. It wasn't my intention to subvert disagreement or to avoid responsibility for my statement.

How many times have you heard a conversation where one party makes a statement, to which the other party replies, "That's true." or "You're right." It's great when people agree and everything. But, do we have to make statements that imply we are the ultimate authority on a topic to do so? There are other ways to agree.

I try very hard to avoid these statements of fact and instead use phrases like, "I think you're right" or "I agree." From my experience, tweaking a statement in this way will earn just as many challenges to my "opinion" as if I had stated it as "fact."

 

[Wildling]

Knowledge is a belief.

Knowledge is merely the belief that you can't be wrong about what you believe. It's a dangerous delusion.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

I hold them to be synonyms. Certainty seems to factor in but really either can be very certain or quite shaky.

 

[Wowbagger]

Knowledge is merely the belief that you can't be wrong about what you believe. It's a dangerous delusion.

That's not a terribly useful definition.

Yes, you CAN be wrong about what you believe. But, if some idea has been shown to be reliable, across multiple lines of investigation, by multiple skeptical parties... That idea is better than a delusion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why?

Because I assume that when you post you're attempting to communicate, and I don't understand what you were trying to communicate in that post. OF course, whether you want to communicate what you're trying to say or just make empty noise is entirely up to you.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Perhaps the poster would like actually present evidence that the OP did in fact conflate religious "belief", scientific "belief", and "belief" in general. The fact the OP mentioned both does not entail such a conflation. More to the point the fact that one can add additional criteria to scientific "belief" in order to distinguish it from religious "belief" does not ential that such criteria actually meaningfully separate "belief" in a statement consider to have religious content from "belief" in a statement considered to have scientific content.

If you wish me to support or expand upon statements that I have made, then please quote or reference them and I will do so. Please don't just make stuff up in the hope that you can get me to defend statements that I have not made.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But, I also suspect that is not what is intended by the opening post.

Which is why, right from the start, I said that we need a definition of terms in order to even have this conversation.

 

[DrDave]

I know that tomatoes are a fruit, but I believe they shouldn't be put in fruit salads

 

[mijopaalmc]

If you wish me to support or expand upon statements that I have made, then please quote or reference them and I will do so. Please don't just make stuff up in the hope that you can get me to defend statements that I have not made.

Did you bother to read what you wrote? Or are you just "rules-lawyering" on the fact that I did not repeat verbatim what you said?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Did you bother to read what you wrote?

Not only did I read it, but I am the person who wrote it. That's how I know that what you said I wrote had no connection to what I actually did write.

If you have any questions to ask me about what I actually did write, then feel free to ask.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Not only did I read it, but I am the person who wrote it. That's how I know that what you said I wrote had no connection to what I actually did write.

If you have any questions to ask me about what I actually did write, then feel free to ask.

Why do you ignore the very words you write?

Or did you not say that OP equivocated between the way "belief" is used in religion meaning of belief and its colloquial usage?

 

[Navigator]

Just out of interest....



...is knowing something as true different than knowledge?

I mean we all know things which are true don't we?
While such knowing can be seen as part of what knowledge is, what knowledge can be is not necessarily true...

...so there are things we each know which are in fact true...and we can say we know they are true, but they don't fit into the other frameworks of knowledge which are not known to be true, or false...

 

[ynot]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Knowledge is the result of empirical evidence.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Belief is “knowledge of the gaps” when there is a lack of empirical evidence.[/FONT]

 

[Navigator]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Knowledge is the result of empirical evidence.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Belief is “knowledge of the gaps” when there is a lack of empirical evidence.[/FONT]

So knowledge about something is not the same as knowing something to be true?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Why do you ignore the very words you write?

I don't. I ignore the words you put in my mouth.

Or did you not say that OP equivocated between the way "belief" is used in religion meaning of belief and its colloquial usage?

I did say that, yes. If you have a question to ask me about that statement, then feel free to do so. What I won't do is talk about statements that I didn't make as if I did make them.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't. I ignore the words you put in my mouth.

And here's the issue: you are making a positive claim that I misrepresented what you said; you have yet to present evidence that is what I did.

I did say that, yes. If you have a question to ask me about that statement, then feel free to do so. What I won't do is talk about statements that I didn't make as if I did make them.

So where's the evidence that what I said you said is substantively different than what you said?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And here's the issue: you are making a positive claim that I misrepresented what you said; you have yet to present evidence that is what I did.



So where's the evidence that what I said you said is substantively different than what you said?

The posts are there for all to see. People can make up their own minds.

If you want to discuss the content of what I've said, then feel free to ask questions about it. I'm not interested in squabbling, and I'm sure nobody reading this thread would be interested in watching us squabble, either. The question, once more, is do you actually want to have a discussion with me, or are you just interested in making empty noise? If it's the former, ask away. If it's the latter, then there's not much I'm prepared to do to help you.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The posts are there for all to see. People can make up their own minds.

If you want to discuss the content of what I've said, then feel free to ask questions about it. I'm not interested in squabbling, and I'm sure nobody reading this thread would be interested in watching us squabble, either. The question, once more, is do you actually want to have a discussion with me, or are you just interested in making empty noise? If it's the former, ask away. If it's the latter, then there's not much I'm prepared to do to help you.

I want to discuss the topic of the thread; you, however, are making that very difficult, because, instead of specifically responding to particular instances of what I wrote, you are making vague accusations about how I misrepresented you and trying to make our dispute out to be my misunderstanding and subsequent refusal to ask for clarification.

I am, in fact, asking for you to tell me where you think I misrepsented you and how those examples constitute a misrepresentation of what you think you wrote. In other words, I am asking to deal with what I wrote, instead of having me backtrack and ask you questions about what you wrote. The former approach is–y'know–how discussions are generally conducted among interlocutors who are not in an implicit pedagogical relationship.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you want to ask me any questions regarding what I've said about the topic of the thread, feel free to do so and I will answer them.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If you want to ask me any questions regarding what I've said about the topic of the thread, feel free to do so and I will answer them.

Why is it I who have to you questions about what you wrote?

It would seem that you could just as easily advance the conversation by asking me questions about what I wrote, and, since it is you who seem to have questions about how what I wrote relates to what you wrote, it would seem that you would be motivated to actually ask questions.