Is knowledge also a belief?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:08 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:


Any so-called knowledge which has not been tried and proven and cannot be tried and proven IS an assumption or we might call it a theory but it is an assumption if we have already judged it to be true without proper evidence - whether or not it is true.
Our so-called subjective truths we see as knowledge but they can also be based on assumption - not facts. They are beliefs.

The Sun and everything else revolving around the Earth in the time of Copernicus was seen as knowledge but it too was an assumption.

The way I look at it, knowledge can only be a belief if it has not been proven. If we know something absolutely, based on absolute evidence, there can be no belief. Belief begins before examination/exploration - it is simply based on faith - faith on whatever hasn't been seen as of yet.

True knowledge, real knowledge.................


Well, tried and proven is only good until it is tried and proven wrong. In so much as it lasts, it lasts. See the "knowledge" of Newtonian physics as well. But not all knowledge can be tried.. but can be proven. But then again, what is proof is merely a matter of convincing, ultimately? Many people think beliefs are proven. The religion of Christianity is true, because it's been proved by the Bible. But So we do have a problem of proper justification for knowledge.

But I agree with your sentiment overall -I wouldn't want to think we must consider knowledge true due to the impossibility of having an all knowing objective view of whatever knowledge we are referring to. There are proper justifications that can be laid out for each individual piece of knowledge. How do we know 1+1 = 2, how do we know the earth revolves around the sun, what justification is required for each. It's hard if not impossible to find a rule here for all knowledge, to consider that the rule that makes it knowledge.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:11 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:ANGRY,

I contest that belief is not a step towards knowledge.[/quote\

Really? Why do you say that? What about the scientists? You don't think that first they come to a conclusion in their thinking that something might be plausible or possible because of something which they have come to see, either by accident or deliberately? That's a form of belief. Without that beginning, how does knowledge come about? Belief is the cornerstone or part of the framework which is the structure upon which knowledge begins to take form or shape.

Belief is NOT knowledge but it is definitely a step toward knowledge though not all beliefs can give rise to knowledge, at least not "real" physical knowledge.


I think the right way to do it is to come to a hypothesis before they come to conclusion. If a scientist comes to a conclusion before they have verified their conclusion, then it leaves open confirmation bias, interpreting data to correlate to your preconceived conclusion. Anyone who does that, isn't thinking properly. A hypothesis ought not be believed, it ought to be verified.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:36 pm

ANGRY,

Well, tried and proven is only good until it is tried and proven wrong. In so much as it lasts, it lasts.

This is certainly true. I suppose that this is why some things are called theories - and not actual proven facts though they may point to being more "real" than less real.
I suppose that there also have to be kind of leaps of faith in science despite the fact of being that it has been shown that some things proven have at some point become unproven.


But not all knowledge can be tried.. but can be proven
.
You mean proven up to a point? For example?

But then again, what is proof is merely a matter of convincing, ultimately?

That's not proof. Being convinced of something without facts is not proof. It may just be wishful thinking or illusion.


Many people think beliefs are proven.

Well, I suppose that we can say that many "beliefs" ultimately become proven - until they're disproven.lol

The religion of Christianity is true, because it's been proved by the Bible.

The religion of Christianity can only be subjective truth or religious belief. How can it even be proven? Some of it is historical truth, I suppose.
Anyway, what is it you are saying is true about Christianity aside from the fact that it is a religion.
The truth of it can only really be based on the good that comes of it, the behavior on the part of Christians. But still, that doesn't make it real. It just makes it perhaps a better religion than one which chooses to do harm.

But So we do have a problem of proper justification for knowledge.

Not if we take the scientific method and even then we can fail.


But I agree with your sentiment overall -I wouldn't want to think we must consider knowledge true due to the impossibility of having an all knowing objective view of whatever knowledge we are referring to. There are proper justifications that can be laid out for each individual piece of knowledge. How do we know 1+1 = 2, how do we know the earth revolves around the sun, what justification is required for each. It's hard if not impossible to find a rule here for all knowledge, to consider that the rule that makes it knowledge.


Put up one finger, then put up another finger. How many does that make? 2 - of course. But we can only trust in that if we are to trust that those who created the concept of 1+1 = 2 were correct. lol
As for the other, we look for all of the evidence which has been gathered, think about it and judge it to be right or wrong.
Some things we really do have to go on faith for, trusting that the scientists know what they are doing. We ask questions about them and examine them.

-
I wouldn't want to think we must consider knowledge true due to the impossibility of having an all knowing objective view of whatever knowledge we are referring to

Sometimes we have to just be agnostic and skeptical about things, delaying making a judgment on things and delaying the
gratification of "knowing". We have to learn to live in negative capability. It can also be great fun in not knowing where we truly cannot know and in wondering and questioning.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". ..."
said Shakespeare.
We have a far, far way to go....
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:44 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:ANGRY,

I contest that belief is not a step towards knowledge.[/quote\

Really? Why do you say that? What about the scientists? You don't think that first they come to a conclusion in their thinking that something might be plausible or possible because of something which they have come to see, either by accident or deliberately? That's a form of belief. Without that beginning, how does knowledge come about? Belief is the cornerstone or part of the framework which is the structure upon which knowledge begins to take form or shape.

Belief is NOT knowledge but it is definitely a step toward knowledge though not all beliefs can give rise to knowledge, at least not "real" physical knowledge.


I think the right way to do it is to come to a hypothesis before they come to conclusion. If a scientist comes to a conclusion before they have verified their conclusion, then it leaves open confirmation bias, interpreting data to correlate to your preconceived conclusion. Anyone who does that, isn't thinking properly. A hypothesis ought not be believed, it ought to be verified.

Yes, but there does have to be a form of belief in something to begin with, scientifically speaking. But that's not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the information ladder or all of the little points, kind of like pointillism lol which begin to make the verifying of a theory more substantial and "real" - like evolution.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Only_Humean » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:02 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I'm not sure what you mean, that's not how the words are used by who? I provided definitions of belief and knowledge - those definitions do not require that knowledge be a subset of belief. So who doesn't use the definition I provided? Certainly some do, because I didn't make up the definition myself.


Could you clarify which definition you're referring to? OP provided five definitions, from only one source (Webster).

I agree it doesn't logically entail that all beliefs are unjustified - that is my claim, that all beliefs are unjustified.


And I've yet to understand your evidence for that claim. Is it principally that people tend to use the word belief to indicate uncertainty, or a statement that they emotionally support with insufficient evidence?

How about the following:
As far as I know, the shop is open until midnight.
He denies it to my face, but I just know he's having an affair!
You know me, I have an eye for the ladies.

All I can really address is: "I contest that belief is never justified. I contest that belief is not a step towards knowledge. I contest that understanding, logic and reason is the prerequisite for knowledge. Once that is obtained, a state of knowing "becomes". I don't agree that it is a state of "believing"."

Belief is not claimed to be a step towards knowledge. The claim you're trying to fight is that belief is a supercategory of knowledge, not an ingredient. Understanding, logic and reason can (and usually do) also form beliefs. If you come home from work and see your brother's car in the driveway and hear a male voice singing in the garage, do you not use the three of them to form a belief about who's in there?

My impression is that you seem to have sanctified some things as "knowledge" in order to dismiss everything else as "not-knowledge".

And is there nothing that you'd say you know that you haven't rationally and logically analysed and empirically verified? I don't believe that. Or maybe I know otherwise. ;)


Well - give me an example? Does all knowledge require empirical verification? I wouldn't think so. It can be straight logical necessity.


Capital of China? Population of the US? Geographical distribution of polar bears? Your mother's maiden name?

Another false dichotomy. "In his opinion, we should deport all foreigners" has no informational content different to "He believes we should deport all foreigners."


I would say it is not a false dichotomy in the sense of belief we are discussing in this OP. I understand what you are saying, but again I think you and others here are conflating multiple senses of the word belief that includes other senses of the word belief I didn't bring about as what I am referring to as belief in this thread. Please note again, that it is not my definition, I didn't make it up, it is one that is used by others.


It was one of the five; my point (also below) is that you seem to be doing the conflating.

Realise? That's a bold claim. As far as I'm aware, the mind handles them identically - wasn't this the point of Sam Harris' excursions into neuroscience?

It's a claim backed by epistemologists - I think Bertrand Russell may be one of them, not sure at this point but I addressed this in the OP, please see "attitude" in this thread (a quick word search from a browser on each page should bring it up nicely). Would be interested in Sam Harris' take on this matter if you have a link.


I don't think your claim about attitude is sufficient to conclude that epistemologists realise there's a difference. As I said earlier, I think we use the verbs "know" and "believe" in different ways.

Sam Harris makes the claim that the brain handles facts and moral values identically, and concludes that they're one and the same and therefore we can assess moral values as facts. The arguments he makes are all kinds of muddleheaded, but the research he did seems to indicate that mentally we treat facts and values identically. I don't have a link, it's in his Moral Landscape book, but I think Google can show a range of links that give a good picture (and hopefully critique).

If you want to approach philosophically as rigorously as you claim, it seems odd that you conflate such different concepts as "criticism of" with "making fun of".


I don't see how what I said "made fun of" beliefs as opposed to criticized, but that doesn't really matter so much does it? Unless one has beliefs that any remarks of mine may have been cutting to a belief system maybe? In such I understand the harshness by some, against my thread here.


You explicitly conflate the two in your OP, where I quoted it.

Anyone emotionally invested in a world view that gets upset about defending it is highly suspect. There's a general rule of thumb, the first to rise to anger in debate has already shown they have lost.


I think that's a poor rule of thumb. An atheist who gets upset at his children being taught creationism in science class has lost the debate?
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:27 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote: But not all knowledge can be tried.. but can be proven

Arcturus Descending wrote:You mean proven up to a point? For example?


Well, conceptual logic - a priori analytic knowledge.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:But then again, what is proof is merely a matter of convincing, ultimately?

Arcturus Descending wrote:That's not proof. Being convinced of something without facts is not proof. It may just be wishful thinking or illusion.


Unless you're referring to logical necessity - tautologies - but I contest even that it still rests upon convincing. If nobody is there to understand a proof, what good is it? If they deny, what good is it? How is it proof? It all comes down to acceptance.




WW_III_ANGRY wrote: But So we do have a problem of proper justification for knowledge.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Not if we take the scientific method and even then we can fail.


Sure, as such, knowledge isn't necessarily truth. But not everything falls under able to undergo the scientific method, particularly philosophy and knowledge from philosophy.



Arcturus Descending wrote:Put up one finger, then put up another finger. How many does that make? 2 - of course. But we can only trust in that if we are to trust that those who created the concept of 1+1 = 2 were correct. lol
As for the other, we look for all of the evidence which has been gathered, think about it and judge it to be right or wrong.
Some things we really do have to go on faith for, trusting that the scientists know what they are doing. We ask questions about them and examine them.


I don't think we have to go on faith. If you want to fine, that's your decision. Can it be part of a justification for knowledge? Maybe, in fact, it is. But it isn't necessarily faith - its understanding the system of science for example, what it entails, making sure you understand the explanations. Not knowing more than what you can know, so as such, not knowing if certain things that scientists say are true. I have no idea about the double slit theory myself. I wouldn't say I know the double slit experiment was done properly, because I don't understand how it could be. Because I don't understand quantum mechanics well enough to consider it knowledge. Now on the other hand, I never mapped the stars, but would consider it knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, because I understand how and why that must be the case.


Arcturus Descending wrote:Sometimes we have to just be agnostic and skeptical about things, delaying making a judgment on things and delaying the
gratification of "knowing". We have to learn to live in negative capability. It can also be great fun in not knowing where we truly cannot know and in wondering and questioning.


Sure I would say that should happen more often than not. "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the intelligent are full of doubt"


Arcturus Descending wrote:"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". ..."
said Shakespeare.
We have a far, far way to go....


Well put
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:30 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Yes, but there does have to be a form of belief in something to begin with, scientifically speaking. But that's not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the information ladder or all of the little points, kind of like pointillism lol which begin to make the verifying of a theory more substantial and "real" - like evolution.


I disagree.. even a fledgling hypothesis is well enough. No belief needed. I would say that it still causes problem to believe in a conclusion before you know the conclusion. Keep an open mind - as it should be, because believing a conclusion before you know isn't logical. It's more intelligent to instead understand that you do not know and that believing it to be true may cause confirmation bias.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:54 am

Only_Humean wrote:Could you clarify which definition you're referring to? OP provided five definitions, from only one source (Webster).


1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in><believes in ghosts>

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I agree it doesn't logically entail that all beliefs are unjustified - that is my claim, that all beliefs are unjustified.


Only_Humean wrote:And I've yet to understand your evidence for that claim. Is it principally that people tend to use the word belief to indicate uncertainty, or a statement that they emotionally support with insufficient evidence?


I will add that wisdom is knowing when you do not know. Not believing something is true, leaving your mind open to possibilities instead of shutting it with belief as true. My previous justification is in my OP here:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote: "Beliefs are in many ways not a good thing to have. Faith on the other hand, is a lot like hope, we have faith that we will do good on a test, etc. Faith, I would say, is a good thing to have, but lets not conflate it with a belief as well. Belief’s in the context I am referring to, are thinking that something(s) are true, without knowing that they are true. I content that there is nothing good that can come of this. If you are right about your belief, you are lucky. But why act before knowing? Why believe you know, before you actually know? Take into account all things before hand. Yes, probability is a factor, but know that you do not know and proceed accordingly. Knowing that you do not know is half the battle many times. It will not cause a need for defense mechanisms, or coping with what you thought was true, turns out to be wrong.

This is how belief’s ought to be criticized, to either solidify them, or knock them down. If a belief can withstand criticism, then perhaps we will find merit in it. If not, we will find nonsense, pain, and anguish, that come about as a result of defense mechanisms. Beliefs are not sacred, anyone who things that is an enemy of rational thinking. an enemy of truth. People believe all sorts of crazy things, yet we should question them, criticize them, in a way that doesn’t hurt their ego, necessarily, however difficult that may be, but in a way that helps people think, to help them understand. When it comes to anything, don’t believe, just know that you do not know.


Only_Humean wrote:How about the following:
As far as I know, the shop is open until midnight.
He denies it to my face, but I just know he's having an affair!
You know me, I have an eye for the ladies.


The use of know here seems synonymous with belief, a different sense from what I pointed here:http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190004&start=150
in that knowledge is: Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. Knowledge can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Those examples above look more like beliefs, aside from the third one, which someone may know they have an "eye" for the ladies, whoever they are referring to. Indeterminate whether that is knowledge or not. Essentially, claiming knowledge isn't the same as having knowledge.

Only_Humean wrote:All I can really address is: "I contest that belief is never justified. I contest that belief is not a step towards knowledge. I contest that understanding, logic and reason is the prerequisite for knowledge. Once that is obtained, a state of knowing "becomes". I don't agree that it is a state of "believing"."

Belief is not claimed to be a step towards knowledge. The claim you're trying to fight is that belief is a supercategory of knowledge, not an ingredient. Understanding, logic and reason can (and usually do) also form beliefs. If you come home from work and see your brother's car in the driveway and hear a male voice singing in the garage, do you not use the three of them to form a belief about who's in there?


I agree - some others here think otherwise however. Or I am under the wrong impression of their thoughts on this matter.

Only_Humean wrote:My impression is that you seem to have sanctified some things as "knowledge" in order to dismiss everything else as "not-knowledge".


No, not my intent. I don't want to dismiss everything else at not knowledge. I would say we have belief, opinion, knowledge and truth. 4 separate distinct categories. It's for the sake of clarity, and not classifying everything under belief when all we do is find ways that its different. So why categorize it that way when every aspect of it is different? I didn't go into the opinion and truth matter yet - that is to come in a greater thesis more in depth than this trial presented here.


Only_Humean wrote:Capital of China? Population of the US? Geographical distribution of polar bears? Your mother's maiden name?


Why would you think I can't empirically justify my knowledge of the capital of China and my mothers maiden name? I wouldn't claim knowledge on the exact population of the US - nor would I claim knowledge on the geographical distribution of polar bears, only in mere generalities of what "we" - we as the human species - know.




Only_Humean wrote:I don't think your claim about attitude is sufficient to conclude that epistemologists realise there's a difference. As I said earlier, I think we use the verbs "know" and "believe" in different ways.


Sure, that's fine. I do note there is disagreement to be found in epistemology, I am on one side, which is the minority I would suspect. You may be on another. A more in depth analysis is needed from both as far as I'm concerned, as nobody has proven that there is no difference in the matter of attitude.

Only_Humean wrote:Sam Harris makes the claim that the brain handles facts and moral values identically, and concludes that they're one and the same and therefore we can assess moral values as facts. The arguments he makes are all kinds of muddleheaded, but the research he did seems to indicate that mentally we treat facts and values identically. I don't have a link, it's in his Moral Landscape book, but I think Google can show a range of links that give a good picture (and hopefully critique).


Does he now? That's fascinating. I have said time and time again that morality is based on values, but could not agree that we handle them identically. I think subtle nuances are lost for the sake of generalities. I don't like generalities so much. In so much as anywhere there is a rule, we seem to have an uncanny ability as humans to break them. Not the rule of logic though ;) I will have to include this in my thesis and will take note of that. It seems pretty evident one would break ones moral code for the sake of a greater value that isn't necessarily moral in itself. For example, would we lie to get a teenager grounded for 3 days, in order to get 1 million dollars? Perhaps. 1 year? Maybe 1 billion dollars. Is it a matter of morality to desire money in order to break a moral code? But would we lie if there was no value outside of morality to find? I wouldn't necessarily think so. Of course, I have more research to do as a result of all the posts here, this is a trial run to see what questions would come up, what I need to answer before I present this elsewhere and questions are asked. In a good these of course, you want to answer the rebuttals before someone gets to rebuttal ;)

If you want to approach philosophically as rigorously as you claim, it seems odd that you conflate such different concepts as "criticism of" with "making fun of".



You explicitly conflate the two in your OP, where I quoted it.


Sorry I was being sarcastic - I wasn't "making fun of". I was sarcastically claiming that someone who gets their beliefs questioned can see it as being made fun of.



I think that's a poor rule of thumb. An atheist who gets upset at his children being taught creationism in science class has lost the debate?


Getting angry at how people are being indoctrinated is different than getting angry for someone questioning your knowledge. I think there's a difference, of course its not some absolute truth here, just a general notion that seems to have some efficacy.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:52 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Getting angry at how people are being indoctrinated is different than getting angry for someone questioning your knowledge.


Of course it is! The former justifies your anger in a circumstance, the latter condemns other people's anger in the exact same circumstance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:03 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Getting angry at how people are being indoctrinated is different than getting angry for someone questioning your knowledge.


Of course it is! The former justifies your anger in a circumstance, the latter condemns other people's anger in the exact same circumstance.


Not the same, beliefs aren't knowledge though :)

If one has reason and understanding on their side, there's no need to rise to anger over "questioning" or criticism of ones stance. Would you get mad if someone told you 1+1=4? I wouldn't. I would chuckle inside, or feel sorry for them, because I know better. If you get angry over something like that, it would seem... immature.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:08 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:So what we have is this:

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something"


1.)"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Yes. Whether or not a person has empirical evidence to prove what they believe, if they think something is the case, they believe it.

2.)"In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something"

There is no way in hell 2.) is 'in other words' of 1.). The first one explicitly states that a belief is a belief WITH OR WITHOUT evidence to prove something with factual certainty, the second one states a belief only when no such foundation exists. Also, why are you introducing 'certainty' into the second clause? You're contradicting yourself, or writing in an extremely imprecise way here.

I contest that belief is not the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.


As far as I'm aware empirical evidence can never prove anything with factual certainty...but of course I don't know how you're privately using the terms 'prove' or 'factual certainty'. But, that aside, yes this would be a sort of belief- a justified belief.

If that is the case, a state of mind that this would be is "knowing" and the difference in the state of mind between knowing and belief is separate, the attitude is different - marked by a calm confidence - which isn't an aspect of the state of mind in belief of something to be true without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.


I haven't seen anybody here argue that belief with certainty isn't experienced differently than belief without certainty. Just as, again, being in a swimming pool with a middling-size trout is experienced very differently from being in a swimming book with a very large shark. They're both still fish.

I would say belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty, or without a verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something.


Right. But that's just a definitional difference, which makes it biographical. All this tells us is that WWW_III_ANGRY chooses to use his words in a way somewhat different from the rest of us. It's not an argument that the way you're using them is more correct, or that anybody else ought to follow your pattern. "I would say a fish is a finned vertebrate that lives in the water, without jaws or teeth large enough to deliver an injurious bite". See how that's not an argument? The only possible response is "How strange it is that Ucci defines 'fish' that way!" You're taking the definition of 'belief' the rest of us have, and adding a new condition to it just to exclude some of the things the rest of us are used to calling 'beliefs'. Why? I see no reason other than your affection for statements like "I have no beliefs".



"Knowledge and belief are not only distinct attitudes but they also have a distinct and proprietary objectives." - https://alochonaa.com/2014/04/23/what-i ... knowledge/



Later in that same paragraph:

"But belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. (Bencivegna, 1999) Knowledge is acquired by deriving beliefs from other beliefs (foundation beliefs)."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:09 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:So what we have is this:

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something"


1.)"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Yes. Whether or not a person has empirical evidence to prove what they believe, if they think something is the case, they believe it.

2.)"In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something"

There is no way in hell 2.) is 'in other words' of 1.). The first one explicitly states that a belief is a belief WITH OR WITHOUT evidence to prove something with factual certainty, the second one states a belief only when no such foundation exists. Also, why are you introducing 'certainty' into the second clause? You're contradicting yourself, or writing in an extremely imprecise way here.



Indeed, I agree there is in no way 1) is in other words 2)

Interesting isn't it? I didn't write it though. That was from wikipedia "belief" link, I forgot to add the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

I wanted to show the disagreement and or confusion that exists in what belief is, as opposed to someone having some all holy definition that must be used.



Uccisore wrote: As far as I'm aware empirical evidence can never prove anything with factual certainty...but of course I don't know how you're privately using the terms 'prove' or 'factual certainty'. But, that aside, yes this would be a sort of belief- a justified belief.


You'd think you'd be past reason-less assertions after pages of this already how I explained why they are not. Rebut why I said they are not - instead of making another assertion. Poor form man.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote: If that is the case, a state of mind that this would be is "knowing" and the difference in the state of mind between knowing and belief is separate, the attitude is different - marked by a calm confidence - which isn't an aspect of the state of mind in belief of something to be true without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.


Uccisore wrote:I haven't seen anybody here argue that belief with certainty isn't experienced differently than belief without certainty. Just as, again, being in a swimming pool with a middling-size trout is experienced very differently from being in a swimming book with a very large shark. They're both still fish.


I wasn't talking about belief with certainty here and belief without certainty here.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I would say belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty, or without a verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something.


Uccisore wrote:Right. But that's just a definitional difference, which makes it biographical. All this tells us is that WWW_III_ANGRY chooses to use his words in a way somewhat different from the rest of us. It's not an argument that the way you're using them is more correct, or that anybody else ought to follow your pattern. "I would say a fish is a finned vertebrate that lives in the water, without jaws or teeth large enough to deliver an injurious bite". See how that's not an argument? The only possible response is "How strange it is that Ucci defines 'fish' that way!" You're taking the definition of 'belief' the rest of us have, and adding a new condition to it just to exclude some of the things the rest of us are used to calling 'beliefs'. Why? I see no reason other than your affection for statements like "I have no beliefs".


Different from the rest of us? Again, the sense I used is not different from the rest of us, it might be different from epistemology's typical usage, but it's a common usage, it's straight out of Merriam Webster.
I do provide reason why a term of knowledge as a type of belief wouldn't be correct, not that any definition of belief is "incorrect". It seems you're getting confused with the direction of the thesis here. I am not adding a new condition to belief, I'm analyzing it and its implications, its attitude, with reason.






WW_III_ANGRY wrote:"Knowledge and belief are not only distinct attitudes but they also have a distinct and proprietary objectives." - https://alochonaa.com/2014/04/23/what-i ... knowledge/


Uccisore wrote:Later in that same paragraph:

"But belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. (Bencivegna, 1999) Knowledge is acquired by deriving beliefs from other beliefs (foundation beliefs)."


Yes, and I disagree with the rest of that paragraph, as do others.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:50 am

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Interesting isn't it? I didn't write it though. That was from wikipedia "belief" link, I forgot to add the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

I wanted to show the disagreement and or confusion that exists in what belief is, as opposed to someone having some all holy definition that must be used.


Yes, the part of the wikipedia article that limits the definition to 'belief' to circumstances when a person doesn't have proof or certainty is wrong, just as you are wrong when you assert things like that.



Uccisore wrote: You'd think you'd be past reason-less assertions after pages of this already how I explained why they are not. Rebut why I said they are not -.


There's little to rebut. All you are doing is making bald assertions- as virtually everybody who has came to this thread, as well as the people who argued with you on Reddit about this same damned thing- have all tried to point out to you. You aren't arguing for anything. You're merely ASSERTING that belief and knowledge ought to be defined on the basis of the attitude that accompanies them. For the third fucking time, that is no different than merely asserting 'fish' and 'sharks' should be defined by how hard they can bite. "Sharks bite harder than trout" is not an argument that 'fish' should be defined by bite strength. "Knowledge feels different than unjustified belief" isn't an argument that belief should be defined by corresponding attitude.

I've given you arguments that your definitions are poor over and over and over again, and every time I do it, you simply copy-paste my words without replying to them except for a two-sentence summary that ignores the actual argument. And I'm not the only one you did it to- you did the same damn thing to Moreno. You did the same damn thing to Omar in the guns and God thread. So stop demanding people to give you detailed rebuttals when you show no signs of having read the damn things when they do.

Your classifications sucks because 1.) It's arbitrary, like my 'sharks aren't fish' example. It sucks because 2.) It leaves us without a word for the broad class of 'thinking a thing is true' situations that knowledge and belief are both obviously members of. It sucks because 3.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current way that we classify these things. It sucks because 4.) claiming that beliefs are inherently unfounded leaves us needing yet another new term to refer to justified beliefs that don't rise to the standard of knowledge. Last but not least, it sucks because 5.) It's an transparent attempt on your part to import imprecise language from New Atheist propaganda, so you can reserve 'belief' as a term of denigration for ideas you don't like.

All of these have been brought up to you by myself and others. All of these have you ignored. Why ask for rebuttals when we both know you won't address them?


WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Different from the rest of us? Again, the sense I used is not different from the rest of us, it might be different from epistemology's typical usage, but it's a common usage, it's straight out of Merriam Webster.


A person can't refute a biographical note about yourself, and that's all "I choose to use words in non-standard ways" is. Merriam Webster and dictionaries in general are nearly useless when defining a field's vernacular. General use of a term is not vernacular use. "Belief" means something in philosophical vernacular. You are having a philosophical conversation, so yes, you are using the term differently from the rest of us.

I do provide reason why a term of knowledge as a type of belief wouldn't be correct,


No, you didn't. You stated your biographical prefence to define these things according to accompanying attitude. That is not a reason the current categorization is incorrect, anymore than stating "Sharks are big and scary" is a reason for declaring sharks aren't fish.

I am not adding a new condition to belief, I'm analyzing it and its implications, its attitude, with reason.


You've declare that knowledge isn't belief, and belief can never be justified. These are both either bullshit claims, or examples of you declaring your intention to talk funny. Neither of them are analysis.

"But belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. (Bencivegna, 1999) Knowledge is acquired by deriving beliefs from other beliefs (foundation beliefs)."


Yes, and I disagree with the rest of that paragraph, as do others.[/quote]

Yes, that's right, you cited a very small portion of a paper to make it seem like it agreed with you when in fact it does not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:26 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:So what we have is this:

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something"


1.)"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Yes. Whether or not a person has empirical evidence to prove what they believe, if they think something is the case, they believe it.

2.)"In other words, belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something"

There is no way in hell 2.) is 'in other words' of 1.). The first one explicitly states that a belief is a belief WITH OR WITHOUT evidence to prove something with factual certainty, the second one states a belief only when no such foundation exists. Also, why are you introducing 'certainty' into the second clause? You're contradicting yourself, or writing in an extremely imprecise way here.



Indeed, I agree there is in no way 1) is in other words 2)

Interesting isn't it? I didn't write it though. That was from wikipedia "belief" link, I forgot to add the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

I wanted to show the disagreement and or confusion that exists in what belief is, as opposed to someone having some all holy definition that must be used.

Wiki's "second statement" is misleading, but not untrue. It is misleading because it infers a definition of "belief" when it is actually providing only an example (a common mistake of people who cannot think for themselves).

A belief is not defined as
      "belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something."
But immediately after the definitional statement, the article author preceded that sentiment with the phrase "In other words...". The second statement should have been extended to say,
    "In other words, ... when they have no absolute verification ... as well as when they do"
,
because that is what the first definitional statement actually said and what is the accepted definition of the conept "belief".

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
"But belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. (Bencivegna, 1999) Knowledge is acquired by deriving beliefs from other beliefs (foundation beliefs)."


Yes, and I disagree with the rest of that paragraph, as do others.

I am not so certain that is true.

To acknowledge that ones beliefs are knowledge requires that they believe the knowledge is true. But a person can memorize the instructions for building a device without actually believing that the instructions are true or memorize the construct of anatomy without believing the construct to be accurate (how else could one get through college). One can understand (and thus "have knowledge of") what someone else has proposed as truth without believing it to be true. Christian hating atheists are always claiming that they know what Christianity is all about, what Christians think, and why they are evil. They claim knowledge of Christian belief. But that doesn't mean that they believe what they think that they know about.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:49 pm

James S Saint wrote:To acknowledge that ones beliefs are knowledge requires that they believe the knowledge is true.


That raises an interesting point, James. Do you think "I believe that X" and "I believe that "X is true" is true" are two different propositions? In other words, does a person both know a thing, and ALSO believe that his knowledge is accurate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:21 pm

Uccisore wrote:
James S Saint wrote:To acknowledge that ones beliefs are knowledge requires that they believe the knowledge is true.


That raises an interesting point, James. Do you think "I believe that X" and "I believe that "X is true" is true" are two different propositions? In other words, does a person both know a thing, and ALSO believe that his knowledge is accurate?


Of course the extent to which you claim to believe that something is true is very much the same thing as the extent to which you claim to know that something is true in that you either are or not able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe and to know this too.

But in order to really explore this more substantively you have to be willing to point to an actual context and note in particular what you claim to believe or know is true about it.

I merely suggest that there seem to be things that philosophers can demonstrate to be true for all of us and things that they cannot.

In particular, things relating to conflicting value judgments.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36134
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:38 pm

James S Saint wrote:
A belief is not defined as
      "belief is when someone thinks something is reality, true, when they have no absolute verified foundation for their certainty of the truth or realness of something."
But immediately after the definitional statement, the article author preceded that sentiment with the phrase "In other words...". The second statement should have been extended to say,
    "In other words, ... when they have no absolute verification ... as well as when they do"
,
because that is what the first definitional statement actually said and what is the accepted definition of the conept "belief".


Well I agree


WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
"But belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. (Bencivegna, 1999) Knowledge is acquired by deriving beliefs from other beliefs (foundation beliefs)."


Yes, and I disagree with the rest of that paragraph, as do others.

James S Saint wrote:I am not so certain that is true.


I'm not sure what you aren't so certain of what is true here.

James S Saint wrote:To acknowledge that ones beliefs are knowledge requires that they believe the knowledge is true. But a person can memorize the instructions for building a device without actually believing that the instructions are true or memorize the construct of anatomy without believing the construct to be accurate (how else could one get through college). One can understand (and thus "have knowledge of") what someone else has proposed as truth without believing it to be true. Christian hating atheists are always claiming that they know what Christianity is all about, what Christians think, and why they are evil. They claim knowledge of Christian belief. But that doesn't mean that they believe what they think that they know about.


Well, your premise "To acknowledge that ones beliefs are knowledge" is shown here and is against everything I have been arguing against in this thread. It would be reasonable to provide reason why belief's are knowledge aside from subjective categorization, after all, what philosophy has done is separate it time and time again while clinging to that categorization. The rest of what you say though is a method to minimize risk here and I agree with that method, that being the risk of believing.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:45 pm

Only_Humean wrote:Realise? That's a bold claim. As far as I'm aware, the mind handles them identically - wasn't this the point of Sam Harris' excursions into neuroscience?
I don't think your claim about attitude is sufficient to conclude that epistemologists realise there's a difference. As I said earlier, I think we use the verbs "know" and "believe" in different ways.


So I found this from Sam Harris - is this what you are referring to? But this seems to be just another injunction on separation of belief and knowledge (as belief. )

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0007272

Which states in the conclusion:

"While religious and nonreligious thinking deferentially engage broad regions of the frontal, parietal, and medial temporal lobes, the difference between belief and disbelief appears to be content-independent. Our study compares religious thinking with ordinary cognition and, as such, constitutes a step toward developing a neuropsychology of religion. However, these findings may also further our understanding of how the brain accepts statements of all kinds to be valid descriptions of the world."

I think you were referring to something else though.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arminius » Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:10 pm

Please just think about it:

Epistemology_for_Beginners.jpg
Epistemology_for_Beginners.jpg (12.9 KiB) Viewed 865 times
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Mar 29, 2016 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Artimas » Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:13 pm

Knowledge is understanding, facts, information or skills acquired by a person.... So no, I do not believe knowledge is believing.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3814
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Arminius » Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:05 pm

Artimas wrote:Knowledge is understanding, facts, information or skills acquired by a person.... So no, I do not believe knowledge is believing.

We already had the "understanding" discussion (look it up in the thread: "Is knowledge also a belief?"). All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives.

Also, nobody said that bellief and knowledge are exactly the same, but they have the same evolutionary root.

Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help. Knowledge did not occur out of the nothingness and also not without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more a believer than those who say that knowledge is not absolutely independent.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:06 pm

Artimas wrote:Knowledge is understanding, facts, information or skills acquired by a person.... So no, I do not believe knowledge is believing.


Replace the word "acquired" in the above with "believed", and you have the mainstream philosophical position. I don't really don't see how you can describe people 'acquiring' or 'having' information or facts without referencing belief formation- to acquire a fact means to become aware of it, to think that it is true. That's what a belief is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:01 pm

Uccisore wrote:
Artimas wrote:Knowledge is understanding, facts, information or skills acquired by a person.... So no, I do not believe knowledge is believing.


Replace the word "acquired" in the above with "believed", and you have the mainstream philosophical position. I don't really don't see how you can describe people 'acquiring' or 'having' information or facts without referencing belief formation- to acquire a fact means to become aware of it, to think that it is true. That's what a belief is.


No sorry, the mainstream philosophical definition of belief is not "understanding facts, information or skills acquired by a person". "

Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage).

Now this digresses here from that in so much as it states "Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge."


This digression is what is currently the matter of contention.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby Uccisore » Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:55 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
Artimas wrote:Knowledge is understanding, facts, information or skills acquired by a person.... So no, I do not believe knowledge is believing.


Replace the word "acquired" in the above with "believed", and you have the mainstream philosophical position. I don't really don't see how you can describe people 'acquiring' or 'having' information or facts without referencing belief formation- to acquire a fact means to become aware of it, to think that it is true. That's what a belief is.


No sorry, the mainstream philosophical definition of belief is not "understanding facts, information or skills acquired by a person".


I didn't say it was. Read the quote again and it should be clear that I'm talking about the mainstream philosophical position of what knowledge is, not belief. What's also clear, judging by your reply, is that you *thought* I was speaking of the philosophical definition of belief. This would be an example of you having a belief, as you define it.
A mistaken belief based on incautious reading, but you had it long enough at least to write your post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Is knowledge also a belief?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:36 am

Uccisore wrote:
I didn't say it was. Read the quote again and it should be clear that I'm talking about the mainstream philosophical position of what knowledge is, not belief. What's also clear, judging by your reply, is that you *thought* I was speaking of the philosophical definition of belief. This would be an example of you having a belief, as you define it.
A mistaken belief based on incautious reading, but you had it long enough at least to write your post.


A yes, I misread what you stated. In that case I wouldn't have responded.

This is an example of me erring. I never held a belief that I knew what you meant. I didn't even remember what you wrote until you responded here and I read it again. So to understand how it wasn't a belief, you just need to understand
....with language I never would claim to know what someone else is meaning. Words can very easily be misunderstood on both ends. Both a communicator can not understand what they are meaning, or a communicator can understand what they are meaning and not utilize proper wording to convey their meaning. This goes for the receiver also, in that a receiver may not understand what the communicator is meaning, or the receiver can misunderstand what the communicator is meaning and not have good knowledge of the proper wording that the communicator used. In all instances, errors can occur as well. Misreading something that isn't really there is fairly common. Mistyping something is also fairly common.

With my understanding of language and meaning - it is very difficult to say I know or believe what a communicator is stating to me. I would never " believe, or believe I understand" what the meaning of someone's communication is, in the sense that I think what the meaning being conveyed and interpreted by myself is true, because I know better - in so much that things are usually often lost in translation, error, improper understandings... because the meaning is something that is solely in possession of the communicator. I don't accept that I think the words I read are perceived correctly, communicated effectively, in so much as to hold an interpretation of meaning as "true", as would be the case in belief. I would claim to know how I interpreted the communication that I received however, that is very straight forward knowledge there. On the communicating end, I would never claim to know that I communicated this effectively so that the receiver had to understand me, or had no choice but to understand what I meant. I am a man full of doubt and wary of misunderstandings with communication. I don't even know or believe that you will understand this. I may have misunderstood what you meant again. I have no belief on the matter. I can only hope we are communicating in a way that conveys meaning from me to you, and you to me, in a reasonable way that causes us to have effective communication

Now - you might find this hard to believe and will attempt to denigrate my stance. But keep in mind this is a disciplined way of thinking that requires years. I have no investment in thinking things are true unjustly and I certainly know it is unjust to think anything we communicate is truly interpreted by me, or you, or communicated by me, or you. I would've fallen into pitfalls decades ago, back when I believed, was naive, was cautious in my thoughts and accepting of things to be true. I am a skeptic, I am full of doubt. You don't want to accept that. You think its impossible. I don't know why though. Perhaps you just haven't trained your mind well enough? IN any case, my thread here is transcendence beyond normal ways of thinking. I agree it is not normal, it does require a useful working knowledge of communication, perception, psychology. It is not just some philosophy that is only based on philosophy, it is grounded in discipline and knowledge.

So you understand the stance, there was nothing more I wanted to do after realizing that I don't believe in God anymore, was to stop believing things. Uccisore, have you ever believed God existed - and had it integrated in a full way of life? I was engulfed by belief years ago - over a decade ago actually. It's pretty interesting, to say the least, to go from believing in a religion - to not, to seeing through it, through its methods that captured people, societies, cultures, for lifetimes, generations, centuries. It was eye opening Uccisore and I only wanted more, and i only want more for the rest of us, because we as humans deserve to think better than we currently do, in my opinion. Because I value humans, because we aren't that far off from where we were thousands of years ago, if it weren't for the efforts of a minority population, perhaps we wouldn't even be utilizing electricity today. Of course, I don't know that, I just know what ceasing belief has done for me, I hope it can do the same for others.

In any case, I welcome you to find other examples of what you think I must believe. I think it only allows opportunity for me to present my state of mind so you can understand. The more examples you supply that differ - the more you will see how my frame of reference is based in knowledge or doubt. Of course, by knowledge, you should know what I mean by now in this thread, that it isn't a matter of belief, it is a matter of knowing - and by belief - how I mean and contend that it isn't a cause for knowledge nor anyway a similar state of mind as knowledge.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users