It is not difficult to find out which of the English speakers use the term “I think” or the term “I believe” how often, in which situations and with or without switching. Until the end of the 1960’s German speakers used the term “ich glaube” very much oftener than the term “ich denke” - maybe this ratio was 90 to 10. Since about 1990 certain German speakers have been using the term “ich denke” very much oftener than the term “ich glaube” - maybe this ratio is 99 to 1 (and for all German speakers maybe 80 to 20 or 70 to 30). So the ratio of the use of the terms “ich glaube” and “ich denke” has reversed within merely two decades (1970’s and 1980’s).
What’s easiest is rarely what’s right 
You can think that, but that’s not how the words are used. You can state that that is how you use those words, but you don’t really offer any reasons for others to agree.
Anyone can believe anything they want, without justification - this is true, but doesn’t logically entail that all beliefs are unjustified. Why should we accept that a belief stops being a belief when it’s justified, and not just become a firmer belief? Is “understanding” or “comprehending” an objective state, or is it a subjective feeling? Many people understood the universe as being heliocentric, and were equipped to judge others on their understanding of that… knowledge? Belief? Was it knowledge until disproved?
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. 
Another false dichotomy. “In his opinion, we should deport all foreigners” has no informational content different to “He believes we should deport all foreigners.”
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?
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”.
Now you’re claiming that the distinction you’ve just imposed on people is causing them cognitive dissonance? Do you not think it’s more likely that people get emotionally invested in their worldview and fight to defend it against people who see things otherwise? This bit reads like the wrong end of the fedora Reddit new atheistsphere, and I’m pretty sure (or at least believe) that you don’t belong there.
Unproven at best.
Uncontroversial.
You’re playing fast and loose with words, now, shifting definitions. In the sense of “something believed” vs. “something known” they’re neither; they aren’t statements, they’re worldviews. Containing some accurate belief(-statement)s and some very weird ones.
So where does “making fun of them” come into this? And now you neither believe nor know anything?
You answered your own question:
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.
I agree it doesn’t logically entail that all beliefs are unjustified - that is my claim, that all beliefs are unjustified. Every instance of any belief that isn’t considered “knowledge”, is unjustified, as in it shouldn’t be thought to be true. That being, belief is something that is thought to be true. Now there are many different senses of the word belief that can create muddiness and confusion, but let’s refer to the sense I provided in my OP as that is what I am discussing. We can say “I believe torture is wrong” - as is the sense of it being an “opinion” - but I would state for the sake of clarity, “opinion”, in this discourse is a better suited term to avoid confusion.
Well - give me an example? Does all knowledge require empirical verification? I wouldn’t think so. It can be straight logical necessity.
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’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 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.
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. A knowledgeable mind, is calm and thoughtful. I regret jumping to the religious upshoot as I did, straight from the core of my thesis- I would prefer we put that behind us because it is only getting in the way of the greater thesis
Keep in mind I provided the sense of belief I was referring to already… see previous comments as well on this matter.
I neither believe, only know, and am filled with doubt and questions everywhere else. I have opinion’s that aren’t a matter of belief in the sense of belief I am referring to and I have knowledge that isn’t a matter of belief in the sense I am referring to. I don’t think it is ample to conflate all senses of belief into one giant sense and build an epistemic frame from it - definitions and use don’t usually work that way, in our meanings. The multiple definitions we are all aware of are merely homonymous to the word belief; It seems people in general don’t really understand that very well.
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”
I would say empirical evidence is not the sole justification for something to be knowledge of course, but a “verified foundation for certainty” is more apt to describe a state of knowledge in the mind.
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. 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 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.
“Knowledge and belief are not only distinct attitudes but they also have a distinct and proprietary objectives.” - alochonaa.com/2014/04/23/what-i … knowledge/
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…
ANGRY,
[quote]
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.
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.
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.
ANGRY,
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.
.
You mean proven up to a point? For example?
That’s not proof. Being convinced of something without facts is not proof. It may just be wishful thinking or illusion.
Well, I suppose that we can say that many “beliefs” ultimately become proven - until they’re disproven.lol
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.
Not if we take the scientific method and even then we can fail.
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.
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…
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.
Could you clarify which definition you’re referring to? OP provided five definitions, from only one source (Webster).
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”.
Capital of China? Population of the US? Geographical distribution of polar bears? Your mother’s maiden name?
It was one of the five; my point (also below) is that you seem to be doing the conflating.
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).
You explicitly conflate the two in your OP, where I quoted it.
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?
Well, conceptual logic - a priori analytic knowledge.
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.
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.
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.
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”
Well put
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.
1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real
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:
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.
I agree - some others here think otherwise however. Or I am under the wrong impression of their thoughts on this matter.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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).”
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. 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.
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.
I wasn’t talking about belief with certainty here and belief without certainty here.
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.
Yes, and I disagree with the rest of that paragraph, as do others.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.