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

[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.

Here is where I ask you to communicate with me:

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.

You should, in the spirit of honest conversation, fulfill this request.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

You don't have to do anything. You started replying to my posts, not the other way around. If you don't have anything to say about them, or anything you want to know about what I think about the subject of the thread, then that's fine. I don't care one way or the other.

Now, I'll say this one last time - if you want to ask me anything about the topic of the thread, feel free. But, seeing as I'm only replying out of politeness in the first place, if you don't have anything to ask me about the topic of the thread, then I'm more than happy to leave the conversation here. It's entirely up to you.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You: You put words in my mouth!

Me: Where have I put words in your mouth?

I'm not sure how the above exchange fails to constitute "ask [you] about what [you] actually did write".

 

[ynot]

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

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]You CAN'T know something is true unless you have knowledge based on [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]empirical evidence that it is true (or not). Merely believing, hoping, praying, accepting, claiming that something is true IS NOT "knowing something to be true"[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How can you KNOW something to be true without KNOWledge gained from empirical evidence?[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[phiwum]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]You CAN'T know something is true unless you have knowledge based on [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]empirical evidence that it is true (or not). Merely believing, hoping, praying, accepting, claiming that something is true IS NOT "knowing something to be true"[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How can you KNOW something to be true without KNOWledge gained from empirical evidence?[/FONT]
[/FONT]

You are right insofar as you mean belief is not knowledge unless it is justified.

You are wrong insofar as you think the only way to justify belief is through empirical evidence. Mathematical proof, for instance, does not involve empirical evidence.

ETA: I should also point out that your attempt to distinguish "S knows P" and "S knows P is true" makes little sense. To assert P is the same as to assert P is true. To believe P is the same as to believe P is true. To know P is the same as to know P is true.

Do you really think it's sensible to say, "I know that the Pens won last night, but I don't know whether it is true that the Pens won last night"?

 

[ynot]

You are right insofar as you mean belief is not knowledge unless it is justified.

Justified by what means other than by empirical evidence? If it is justified by empirical evidence then that’s knowledge, not belief.

You are wrong insofar as you think the only way to justify belief is through empirical evidence. Mathematical proof, for instance, does not involve empirical evidence.

Mathematical proof is empirical evidence that math works as an abstract numerological system.

ETA: I should also point out that your attempt to distinguish "S knows P" and "S knows P is true" makes little sense. To assert P is the same as to assert P is true. To believe P is the same as to believe P is true. To know P is the same as to know P is true.

That gibberish doesn’t in any way represent any attempt of mine.

Do you really think it's sensible to say, "I know that the Pens won last night, but I don't know whether it is true that the Pens won last night"?

No, and that’s not what I say so I’m at a loss as to why you would ask me. However, it would be “sensible” to say “I believe the Pens won last night, but I don't know whether it is true that the Pens won last night”. If I had empirical evidence that the Pens won then I would know they did.

 

[Pulvinar]

No, and that’s not what I say so I’m at a loss as to why you would ask me. However, it would be “sensible” to say “I believe the Pens won last night, but I don't know whether it is true that the Pens won last night”. If I had empirical evidence that the Pens won then I would know they did.

How do illusions fit into your naming scheme? This is an illusionist's forum, after all. Is seeing a jack of hearts being pulled from the deck a belief, or knowledge?

I believe John Pollock's Defeasible Reasoning is a good way to handle this. But I could be wrong…

 

[ynot]

How do illusions fit into your naming scheme? This is an illusionist's forum, after all. Is seeing a jack of hearts being pulled from the deck a belief, or knowledge?

I believe John Pollock's Defeasible Reasoning is a good way to handle this. But I could be wrong…

And it’s an educational forum “to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science”, so perhaps the terms should be defined as being “scientific knowledge” and “paranormal beliefs”.

Empirical evidence is a central process as part of the scientific method which also involves thorough and repeated observation, investigation, scrutiny and analysis to ensure the veracity of evidence as much as possible. Properly applied, the scientific method shouldn’t be fooled by illusions. Belief that you have empirical evidence isn’t knowledge that you have.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And it’s an educational forum “to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science”, so perhaps the terms should be defined as being “scientific knowledge” and “paranormal beliefs”.

I'm sure at some point I'm going to get tired of reiterating that way back in post 2 I said that we need to define the terms "belief" and "knowledge" before we could even start this conversation, but that point is not right now.

Of course, it seems that the OP isn't remotely interested in the thread s/he started, so it's kind of irrelevant how s/he defines those terms. However, it's still true that unless we have a consistent definition of both "knowledge" and "belief", which everybody is using, then there's nothing fruitful that can come out of this thread.

 

[Navigator]

I'm sure at some point I'm going to get tired of reiterating that way back in post 2 I said that we need to define the terms "belief" and "knowledge" before we could even start this conversation, but that point is not right now.

Of course, it seems that the OP isn't remotely interested in the thread s/he started, so it's kind of irrelevant how s/he defines those terms. However, it's still true that unless we have a consistent definition of both "knowledge" and "belief", which everybody is using, then there's nothing fruitful that can come out of this thread.

I am intrigued that there is no particular consensus...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I am intrigued that there is no particular consensus...

Well, the word "belief" has more than one definition. If people aren't using the same one (as is usually the case in conversations such as this), then they're constantly going to be talking at cross-purposes. That's not going to help anybody to communicate anything.

 

[phiwum]

Justified by what means other than by empirical evidence? If it is justified by empirical evidence then that’s knowledge, not belief.


Mathematical proof is empirical evidence that math works as an abstract numerological system.

Sorry, but this is your own private meaning of "empirical evidence". Mathematical and other purely abstract reasoning are not examples of empirical evidence in the usual sense of the term.

ETA: I also think that your idea of how proofs are supposed to be empirical evidence missed my point, since you spoke of it as evidence that math "works". But I'm saying that, because I have am familiar with the axioms of arithmetic, and because I have followed the argument that sqrt(2) is irrational step-by-step, confirming that it is a valid argument, I know that sqrt(2) is irrational is a theorem of PA. And none of these bits of reasoning or familiarity honestly count as empirical evidence that sqrt(2) is irrational.

That gibberish doesn’t in any way represent any attempt of mine.

Quite right. I was confusing you with some other poster earlier in the thread.

Sorry.

 

[phiwum]

Well, the word "belief" has more than one definition. If people aren't using the same one (as is usually the case in conversations such as this), then they're constantly going to be talking at cross-purposes. That's not going to help anybody to communicate anything.

Think of the many different uses of "know".

Most of the time, philosophers are interested in "knowing that", where we are said to know that a given proposition is true.

There is also "knowing how", as in knowing how to ride a bike, speak a language, etc.

There is also knowing as familiarity, as in knowing a particular person.

There is also the kind of knowing we mean when we say we know the colors (i.e., names of colors), we know the alphabet, and so on. Maybe this is familiarity again, or knowing how (to recite the alphabet) or something else.

So, the term "to know" is ambiguous as well. I assumed, however, that only the first sense is really relevant for this discussion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, the term "to know" is ambiguous as well.

Indeed, but it doesn't have the equivocation that "belief" almost invariably does in conversations such as these.

I assumed, however, that only the first sense is really relevant for this discussion.

Maybe that's a safe assumption. Maybe it isn't. Without everybody making the same assumption or, preferably, it being clearly and explicitly set out at the start in what sense the word is being used, then there's a barrier to effective communication.

 

[ynot]

Scientific knowledge is an intellectual conclusion based on information provided by evidence.

Paranormal belief is an emotional conclusion based on denial, rejection, lack or ignorance of information provided by evidence.

 

[Navigator]

Well, the word "belief" has more than one definition. If people aren't using the same one (as is usually the case in conversations such as this), then they're constantly going to be talking at cross-purposes. That's not going to help anybody to communicate anything.

The word belief can be used in relation to knowledge or knowing.

What about those things which you know? The things which you know to be true?
How can these things be regarded as belief?

 

[AlBell]

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...

You mean other than knowlege can at least in principle be objectively verified, and belief too often is only subjective?

ps. I suspect I was ninjaed by one or more.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The word belief can be used in relation to knowledge or knowing.

What about those things which you know? The things which you know to be true?
How can these things be regarded as belief?

I don't see how any of that is relevant to any post I've made.

 

[ynot]

The word belief can be used in relation to knowledge or knowing.

Give us a demo then . . .

What about those things which you know? The things which you know to be true?

Nope, that's not a demo of the previous statement. You didn't use the word "belief" or "believe" even once. Perhaps you meant to say the following . . .

“What about those things which you believe you know? The things which you believe you know to be true”.

If you know things to be true then you must have knowledge that they are, not belief that they are. Different words with different meanings.

How can these things be regarded as belief?

They can't as you didn't use the word belief or believe once.

You say a thing can happen then you give an example where the thing doesn’t happen. You then ask how the example where the thing didn’t happen can be an example of the thing happening.

 

[blobru]

Think of the many different uses of "know".

Most of the time, philosophers are interested in "knowing that", where we are said to know that a given proposition is true.

There is also "knowing how", as in knowing how to ride a bike, speak a language, etc.

There is also knowing as familiarity, as in knowing a particular person.

There is also the kind of knowing we mean when we say we know the colors (i.e., names of colors), we know the alphabet, and so on. Maybe this is familiarity again, or knowing how (to recite the alphabet) or something else.

So, the term "to know" is ambiguous as well. I assumed, however, that only the first sense is really relevant for this discussion.

Hi, phiwum. In the, formally absurd yet informally not uncommon, case of someone who says, "I know P, yet I still can't believe P," would you say that person is using "know" unconventionally*, "believe", both, or neither? (For example: "I know it's raining cats and dogs - literally, cats and dogs falling from the sky as a feature of the weather - yet I still can't believe it [it's raining cats and dogs]." Can assume the person has verified the knowledge in every way she might be expected to, that it is "justified" in that sense; and that she is sincere in describing her belief-state as a lack of belief in P (precisely as an inability to believe P), despite her knowledge that P.)

P.S. was going to make P = "the Pens won", but as a Pens fan, that would be cruel (to a, presumably, Bruins fan). *(referring to the philosophical convention, where knowledge = justified true belief, or close enough, not getting into Gettier et al).