Is knowledge also a belief?

I disagree, because “understanding” and “thinking something is true” are processes that belong to the same root(s). Animals with a primitive (not complex enough) brain do not distinguish between “understanding” and “thinking something is true”. You need to have a well enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between “understanding” and “thinking something is true”.

Evidence can be anything, reason sure but what standard? That doesn’t really answer a question. It seems there needs to be a standard. My question “was it the same as knowledge” is was the justification the same criteria as knowledge as I defined it? A more complex manner. However the process Gettier used would have some intricacies that I would need clarification on - do you know where I can find that?

As I understand it, Gettier showed that some justified belief is knowledge, essentially, but not all. I do not agree with that conclusion, but was enough to disprove JTB nonetheless.

I would ask if you can give me your favorite theory on the justifications and standards for what constitutes knowledge - I would certainly appreciate that. However I would rather it not be a personal philosophy - but if that is all you have I will take that as well. Thank you~ I would also be interested in theories on justifications for what constitutes belief, opinion and truth if you know of them.

Rationalism, empiricism, coherentism are all very myopic I would say compared to what I propose here. Correct me if you see it otherwise. They only take aspects of knowledge, not an entire foundation for a standard of what is knowledge. Foundationalism itself is based on JTB as well so is rather… meh.

I don’t agree that belief is a mere component of knowledge as I have already explained. I would rather understand how belief is a component of knowledge aside from what I already shown and attempted refutation on in my greater OP. I parsed belief and knowledge apart - noting that attitude of certainty was not sufficient enough to consider knowledge a component of belief, or vice versa. There may be differences in attitude of certainty nonetheless in knowledge and belief. So that something that is known doesn’t really have the same attitude of certainty as something that is believed, in any case. It’s possible that the mind itself may separate knowledge and belief at least at an unconscious level, that is if the mind is healthy and functioning logically.

Contending that knowledge isn’t always true isn’t a way that nobody else uses it. In this very board I’ve already seen this sentiment that knowledge is not truth. You can see it anywhere online as well, … 2&ie=UTF-8

There is legitimate reason to consider that as well. Even the definition of knowledge that was presented has no requirement of truth. It isn’t even implied. So no, I don’t agree that everyone uses or views knowledge as necessarily the truth. However then you argue that knowledge is true belief after already noting that Gettier refuted it, to make it seem like there is truth aspect to it. Which is it, knowledge is JTB or it isn’t? Or is it simply Justified Truth now? You’re not being very clear and consistent here.

I do have a standard of justification. I would have to present a theory on justification of knowledge, truth, belief and opinion however. Simply because the field epistemology doesn’t have clear standards or comprehensive standards, but rather myopic and if not vague standards, it does not mean that I don’t value justification of knowledge, truth, belief or opinion and have a model. Some of which that model has already been presented. I am not sure where you have refuted what I stated in the OP other than providing varying philosophy that isn’t what I stated. The field seems ripe for the picking on this matter.

You claiming knowledge to be a type of belief, which it is, is merely a claim of course. What reason is it a type of belief that refutes what I have stated in the OP?

Now finally - you are misunderstanding what I am stating here:

“It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic.[1] In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief”, though “well-justified true belief” is more complete as it accounts for the Gettier problems. However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist.”

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings"

Please note that this shows no indication here that truth is of a matter to knowledge."

When you responded:
"Knowledge being ‘well-justified true belief’ shows no indication that truth is a matter to knowledge? Now I have to ask if this is some kind of joke. "

We already got beyond knowledge being justified true belief. But yet again you come back to it as if its viable. Again, I am seeing a lack of consistency on your end. I contend that knowledge is justified in a certain ways through the definition I provided, and please note that definition is not Justified true belief

Thinking something is true is not a similar process as understanding something to be true. Perhaps in your mind it is though? Perhaps in my mind it is not. How can we know? Interesting thought there.

On Animals and very young children - how do you know they don’t? What if they do? Perhaps it is a matter of a well enough working complex brain to distinguish, but perhaps they just can’t communicate it either. Is this whole matter only justifiable for my brain? Does everyone need to parse knowledge, belief, opinion and truth their own way or can we get a reasonable generalization, and if so why not the one I am proposing in its infancy?

I like looking at competing ideas, perceptions, beliefs, and thoughts as a subset of competing egos.

Could we also say that knowledge is an extension of ego?

I would not, but you can. I will then compete against you. Please note I would thoroughly destroy that sentiment, as would Uccisore, as would any known philosopher or thinker of the history of civilization perhaps. I may even raise you up to think you are worthy of a challenge, or at least motivate you to challenge, only to destroy you like a little peon fly that you are. Of course, I jest, or do I? In honor of your post, I reply apropos

"More the knowledge lesser the ego, lesser the knowledge more the ego.” - Albert Einstein

There is much truth to that sentiment. I would contest while it can be generally true, it isn’t necessarily true. I think it can lead to confidence as very related to ego, yet knowledge certainly builds confidence.

In dealing with complex matters, such as what myself and Uccisore are discussing here, our ego can and might have already gotten in the way of some things. I’m not sure if I am at fault of if he is. Its possible none of us are. But there is frustration when lack of understanding each other occurs - and if there isn’t a good way to fully explain onself to another based on lack of knowledge or understanding, ego can and oft does get in the way of noble intellectual discussion.

My argumentation is an evolutionary biological (especially neurological) one, and I compare the phylogenetic evolution with the ontogenetic development. You can be sure that animals with a primitive (not complex enough) brain are not capable of distinguishing between “understanding” and “thinking something is true”. So you need to have a well enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between “understanding” and “thinking something is true”. The said roots are evolutionary biological (especially neurological) roots, mainly the nervous system that leads to a primitive brain that leads to a more complex brain that leads to a still more complex brain … and so on.

I think the only thing that can discern this would be neurological validation through pinpointing differences in belief and knowledge, or not. If there is no difference, then it becomes a matter that might be unknown due to lack of proper technology that can differentiate the subtle difference

Them be fighting words. :laughing:

Yeah, I think ego limits knowledge. You’ll notice there is nothing that is unbiased.

All knowledge is biased in one form or another concerning human expirience.

Like I said before, and now I’m calling you the slow kids because you ignored me and went on for another page…

Knowledge is always a belief (the op), the question is, is a belief always knowledge …

Well use the definition of fact as a synonym for knowledge, which is famously, justified true belief…

So basically, it corresponds accurately with reality…

Belief entails a looser standard for SOME people!!!

"I believe the world is a spherical ellipse , even though I’ve never been to space or circumnavigated it "

Do you KNOW the world is a spherical ellipse ??

Well , I guess not !!!

Belief is SPECIFICALLY about taking someone’s word for it !! That’s all it is…

Knowledge is about objectivity to this degree, “these principles that we all take our own words for, also add up to this!”

Is it a belief that you exist?? Yes. It is also knowledge, everyone believes they exist. Someone may argue with you, and then you say. " you can’t argue with me if you don’t exist"

You know you exist and you believe you exist!

You can however believe Bigfoot is real, but not know it… Only, for some people…

There are people who don’t believe things unless they know them!!!

So it’s a bit of a word game to this degree!

Let me give another example…

You could be thirsty as fuck, walking through a desert and believe that you are walking towards a lake, but until you actually get there you can’t have knowledge that it is a lake … You can follow a mirage for a 1000 miles and never hit a lake …

Justified true belief ??? It looks like a lake!!!

Knowledge : I’m drinking from a lake!!!

What standard? Let’s start with the standard that YOU used when you just got done saying we were justified in believing we live on Earth, or that we have eyes. You talk about justification like you know what it is and that it’s a useful concept when it suits you, then dismiss it out of hand as ambiguous when that suits you. You aren’t reasoning consistently.

Well who said there wasn’t one, except you?

Gettier only wrote one published paper in his entire career, and it is short. If you search the Gettier problem, you will find it.

Gettier showed that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.

So you want me to summarize the entire field of epistemology for you, in other words. In a moment you’re going to dismiss the entire thing anyway…

…and there it is. Do I think the entire field of epistemology is myopic compared to this essay you wrote on Reddit? No, no I do not. Are you afflicted with such hubris that you actually believe this?

An attitude of certainty is not what makes belief a component of knowledge.  You've said much about whether or not knowledge must always be true.  The only. thing that can be true is a proposition.  A proposition that we think is true is a belief. A proposition that we do not think is true is also a belief (a belief that ~a is true).  

Nobody said that it did. I already explained this with my shark analogy.

Admitting that knowledge is something that is either true or false is tantamount to admitting that knowledge is a sort of belief, as I explained above.

I am to somebody who has read Gettier. Gettier argues that JTB is insufficent for knowledge. I.E., he argues that JTB + something else is required for knowledge. In other words, yes, Gettier argues that JTB =/ knowledge, while at the same time maintaining that truth is a criteria for knowledge.

When it suits you. When it doesn’t suit you, you argue that the concept of justification is vague, and can be anything people want it to be.

Not really; I’m sure tyour theory on justification lines up pretty well with some theory that’s already out there, this ground has all been covered pretty well over the centuries. What’s important is that you have an understanding of what justification is. That should be sufficient for you to recognize how it’s required for knowledge, and sufficient to make your other claims about the vagueness of justification standards moot.

Nobody has claimed that but you, and you haven’t backed it up in any way. I am 99% sure that whatever standards of justification you have either fit nicely within present epistemology, or are nonsense.

Well, when I pointed out to you that the definition of belief was no more than “thinking a proposition is true”, my impression was you completely backed off your OP and admitted your argument was false under that definition, and proceeded to try to tell me that a belief must actually be something other than that, and started talking about vague attitudes instead, based on nothing more than the fact that you saw the word ‘attitude’ in the SEP. So there’s your refutation:

Under the definition of ‘belief’ that pretty much all of Western analytic philosophy uses, knowledge is a type of belief. If you’ve got your own special definition of ‘belief’, and your own special definition of ‘knowledge’, then sure- knowledge may or may not be a type of belief. Hell, knowledge may be a type of dog if you’ve got your own special definition for ‘god’. What’s important is,

1.) When a person A thinks a proposition P is true, and A and P each meet some other criteria (perhaps justification, perhaps being true, perhaps some other things), then A can be said to know P.

If you don’t disagree with that, then we have no non-semantic disagreement, as I (and virtually every other human being who studies this stuff) refers to the stated relationship between A and P as “A believes P”.

That’s it. If 1 is true, then knowledge is a type of belief. “A believes P” becomes “A knows P” when certain other criteria are met. That’s all JTB+ is claiming.

If knowledge can be justified through reason or logic, it must be a relationship to a proposition, since propositions are what reason and logic concern. If a part of that relationship is a subject thinking the proposition is true, then it is a belief, as epistemology defines ‘belief’. You can use any semantics you want to describe this scenario. Preferring different semantics is not the same thing has having a substantive disagreement with JTB+ = knowledge.


  1. Coherent/Consistent
  2. Comprehensive
  3. Relevant

Those are also the principles of Truth, but of course you were not asking me. :sunglasses:

Science also depends on definitions. If scientists try for example what you call the “pinpointing differences in belief and knowledge, or not”, then they have to begin with the definition of the words „belief“ and „knowledge“ - regardless whether they want to or not. So scientists can always find or not find what they want to or what the politicians want them to find or to not find.

Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own mind - as Kant said (translated by me).

Ok I’ll accept earth is a different truth, but that doesn’t mean it’s the truth we “knew”

It is the same Earth, if it is generated by codebites it is still the same Earth. The only truth that is different is what is behind the generation of Earth, not Earth itself.The axioms of navigation on how to navigate a virtual Earth, still remain true within the simulation, and if it is not a simulation, they still remain true.

You are saying this, but you aren’t really countering my claims against why this isn’t so. I already addressed your sentiment in the OP

The question remains, how are we certain, and do we know we are certain.

For all we know, we could be in a science lab injected false memories that don’t exist outside of the injection. Therefore, we can only know things exist in the past and in the present, but we can only be 99.9999999999 percent sure that the same patterns will repeat in the future.
For instance, we’ve seen gravity happen 999999999 times, so we believe that gravity will still occur 100 years from now, provided two conditions are met - We have our eyes open, and 2. We are not dead by then.

Yes what standard indeed. So as I understand the fields of epistemology that you provided, rationalism, empiricism, etc - they all provide narrower, specific standards for what constitutes knowledge as opposed to something as broad as JTB.
Correct me if I’m wrong? If not, please note that I am in turn (at least beginning, or attempting) on providing a standard for knowledge as broad as JTB. As such, I don’t see any other broad standards other than JTB. As my response, it seems there needs to be a broad standard to replace JTB. Please note that I never said there wasn’t standards in epistemology, but I don’t know of any that address knowledge in the manner that JTB does and that includes rationalism, foundationlism, and empiricism. Please correct me if I am wrong there.

In any case, I am not asking for your to summarize the entire field of epistemology, unless there is only the entire field of epistemology to rely on in determining a standard for knowledge. Is that what you are implying? Because I am looking for a more simplistic and think I have and can provide a more simplistic nature of knowledge - that rivals the simplicity of Plato’s JTB however with more efficacy. Of course, I don’t mine is so simple, but I think mine would be broader, yet simple enough compared to the entire field of epistemology.

Gettier showed that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge yes, but in turn Getter showed that some JTB is knowledge, correct? Certainly not all.

Now you state an attitude of certainty is not what makes belief a component of knowledge, well then I ask, what does? I agree that a proposition that we think is true can be a belief unless it can be justified as knowledge. The standard of justification however - I have yet to lay out. But nor did Plato really. There are justifications in rationalism, empiricism, but they don’t encompass knowledge in general. The encompasses how to know specific things, not everything that is knowable.

I would think my standards do fit in the field of epistemology - except for those standards take into account JTB and as such knoweldge as a belief. I understand the knowledge not always being true seems to be a belief - however it does come down to what the word knowledge means then in that case. Is it knowledge is “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.” or is it knowledge that is “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 that are true”.

Not the qualifier of true being the only difference, in which I added on my own, not from any source of what the definition of knowledge is. Being that it may be, justification based on reason, logic, understanding means a state of knowing is not a state of believing - it is a different state of mind. They are subtly different, but also very meaningfully different. That is my contention and I see no reason why it couldn’t be so aside from subjectively grouping knowledge as also a belief and missing out on this subtle difference in attitude of knowledge in our state of mind that is brought about by justification through reason, logic and understanding. Belief is not a calm state of mind, knowing is. There are differences that I contend qualify knowledge to be seen not as belief in any way shape or form, as alluded to earlier. This difference in belief and knowledge, I contend, doesn’t matter if knowledge is true or not. It is not the same state of mind~

Interesting, so relevant to what?

Very good then - so there is no real basis you claim other than a subjective definition?

I contend my framework is superior in that it notes a difference that leads to a more coherent state of mind for all.