Is knowledge also a belief?

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.

No. And I was not talking about a “subjective definition”. Your Interpretation is false. Read my posts again. Perhaps you can come to the right interpretation. Good luck!

Ok, so then I ask what are these definitions of belief and knowledge that they must begin with?

No, things like empiricism, rationalism and so on seek to flesh out the details of what the ‘J’ in JTB+ stands for. They aren’t in any sort of opposition to it. Empiricism and Rationalism are types of justification, they don’t disagree that JTB or JTB+ = knowledge.

Only if there is something inherently flawed with JTB+, which I don’t think you’ve shown.

As far as I recall, Gettier would say that all knowledge is JTB, but not all JTB is knowledge- there is an additional something which must be added to JTB to qualify it as knowledge.

A belief is a component in knowledge because a belief is the thing that can be justified and true, in the same way that ‘animal’ is a component to ‘being a fish’, because animals are the things that have spines, breathe with gills, and etc.

The state of thinking a proposition is true is always a belief. That is a simple definition of the term. That’s why knowledge is also a belief- because knowledge is a particular sort of ‘thinking a proposition is true’. I still haven’t seen a non-semantic disagreement with this from you.

Which is why JTB is broad and doesn’t specify the details of the ‘J’, and doesn’t have to in order for it to be true.

Eh, I don’t really care. It’s looking more and more like you’re making a semantic point and not a philosophical one. Pick the dictionary definition you like best and promote it I guess.

Again with this? Being true isn’t from any source of what the definition of knowledge is? What about the “Justified TRUE belief” definition we’ve been discussing for two days? Jesus Christ.

That’s your argument? You don’t see why it couldn’t be so? You’re right because you don’t see why you’re wrong? I’ve already given you an explicit argument for why you’re wrong twice, and again you’ve ignored it. Let me do it…again. Even simpler this time.

Propostions are the only things that can be true or false.
A belief is ‘a state of mind concerning the truth or falsehood of a proposition’.
Knowledge is also a state of mind concerning the truth or falsehood of proposition.
That’s why knowledge is a type of belief.

So far all you’ve given me is “Yeah but knowledge and belief feel different in my head”. Yeah, no shit. But so what? Nobody defines ‘belief’ according to a specific way it feels in your head. Thinking dogs have four legs, thinking the sun is shining, and thinking you have cancer all feel very different from each other too, and yet nobody tries to argue that some of these things aren’t belief on the basis of that.

There’s nothing subjective about it. They are both states of mind concerning the truth or falsehood of propositions.

Knowing that you are on fire is not a calm state of mind. Look, why would you even WANT to define ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’ according to how you imagine they feel in other people’s heads? You already conceded to Arminius that how knowledge feels to you might be completely different from how it feels to him, so doesn’t that render it useless as a definition when we already have a perfectly good one?

It is not so difficult to say. So just make some suggestions.

To really narrow this discussion down to the crux of the matter, I’m going to only respond to this:

“A belief is a component in knowledge because a belief is the thing that can be justified and true, in the same way that ‘animal’ is a component to ‘being a fish’, because animals are the things that have spines, breathe with gills, and etc.”

Now you state a belief is a component in knowledge because a belief is the thing that can be justified and true"…

Please note you state belief can be justified and true. Of course, we don’t agree there. But you are stating also that “Belief is a component in knowledge” - note that you didn’t state “the component in knowledge” which would carry more weight.

Belief’s can become justified as knowledge, as I stated in my OP. However, my contention here is that belief is not needed for knowledge, rather a state of knowing is all that is needed and that state is state is different from belief. i state it is possible to bypass belief altogether to obtain knowledge.

So your response isn’t really a direct answer to the question I pose.

Do you understand this?

Relevant to the scope of topic concerns. For example, I define all existence in terms of affect because without it affecting anything, it is not relevant to my ontological concerns and if it does affect anything, I need to include it in the scope of an ontology. Or to say that you “know how to repair a short-block chevy”, whatever you are referring to as “knowing” needs to include the actual issue of repairing and specifically all of the details a chevy short-block within the scope of your intent - “relevant to your intent”.

You don’t think beliefs can be justified?

Or true?

Do you know that, or just believe it?

Oh wait, you DO think beliefs can become justified. You just prefer not to call them beliefs anymore when they are justified. Your preference is not an argument for anything. It certainly doesn’t change the fact that when a belief becomes ‘justified as knowledge’ it remains a person’s cognizance as to whether or not a proposition is true, and thus remains a type of belief, according to how epistemology defines ‘belief’.

I understand that you decided to ignore 95% of what I wrote to you, including all the detailed arguments against your positions and the information you asked for.