One of the main reasons why knowledge is best understood as a type of belief, in addition to what I’ve already given, is that knowledge is part of a continuum: there’s guesses and horrible reasoning and blind hopes on one end, and absolutely certain self-evident truths on the other, but there’s also every possible grade in between. Knowledge and believe are the same type of thing because there is clearly no hard break where one stops and the other begins. Whether or not information can be correctly processed is just one of those considerations- some knowledge doesn’t require much if any interpretation, some knowledge is an interpretation of some basic fact.
Knowledge is certainly part of a continuum with regard to science. This is because science is primarily an inductive discipline so deals
with what is probably true rather than what is definitely true. So it is an eternally self correcting system. For this is how it progresses
Yep. Science is one of those fields that if you plot it on the continuum of all of human knowledge, it would be somewhere in the middle- scientific claims are often very-well justified beliefs that don’t meet classic definitions for knowledge, since as you say they deal with probabilities. Fracturing belief and knowledge into two completely different things would leave us with no place to attribute scientific theories.
I agree with your last post - in that all knowledge is biased… That being that all knowledge is based on our subjective experience. That is why it shouldn’t have a truth essence as a requirement. It is very often truth I would say, but to consider knowledge truth gives us problems that need reconciliation. We can retroactively say, well our knowledge turned out to be a belief after all… because it was wrong. But what does that say about knowledge to begin with? The justification’s for why knowledge is knowledge are reasonable, but the end result of expecting truth may not be, that is my contention.
I think knowledge does not require believing it requires understanding. But understanding doesn’t mean truth. I would think that is a more coherent foundation for how things play out in our minds when compared to reality.
If we can just say knowledge is justified belief, there is of course a case for that. I do think that why this should be discarded as I have mentioned quite a bit in previous posts is that if belief is defined as accepting something true, and justified acceptance of something being true is knowledge, then we miss out on the understanding aspect of it, in that it should be knowledge is understanding something is true, not merely accepting that it is true. That has been my point in this discussion, in that acceptance of something is rather rudimentary and doesn’t imply understanding. Which is why I say the epistemological foundation of general consensus is lacking when it proclaims knowledge a type of belief.
As such, there is some argument for philosophical epistemology on the matter. Currently it is deemed that truth is in more contention on the aspect of knowledge than belief, and belief not being a part of knowledge being more controversial as well, and I think we can lay out of framework that includes both. Uccisore might say, “But epistemologists defined it that way, its fact!” And I shall merely laugh inside. 
I agree with everything except knowledge is a subset of information becasue information is very broad and goes beyond the mind. Knowledge does not go beyond the mind. We are talking about how the mind thinks with knowledge, but information exists whether our mind exists or not.
Yes this is a good question. Where is that line. How do you distinguish that. There is belief, possible belief? Knowledge, possible knowledge in people. People seem to be very confused as to what they think they know, what they think they believe, and what they actually know and what they actually believe.
I blame poor philosophy on the matter to some extent and an ivory tower dilemma of sorts. People aren’t taught a very coherent understanding of knowledge, in so much as facts are well “believed”, in orthodoxy of epistemological philospohy, yet knowledge is also true in orthodoxy of epistemological philosophy if one considers that knowledge is acceptance of something being true, as is a belief. They know there’s a difference between knowledge and belief and epistemology muddles it through a confusing fashion that doesn’t really get to the core of how we think in ways I already mentioned, in that knowledge is not acceptance but understanding of something as true. So things get muddied between belief and knowledge. Does it mean anything really at times, when we know beliefs are very different from knowledge, but then anyone can just say all knowledge and science is just belief and argue down to some justification of why knowledge isn’t really justified.
But I contest that knowledge is known and understood because of the attitude of knowledge being very different from the attitude of belief. Knowledge isn’t acceptance of something as true, it is much more than that. So Plato has a reasonable sentiment that knowledge is justified true belief and we have come a long way since then and realize that is not true, that justification is very much so problematic in epistemology as a whole and that a concise clear philosophy of epistemology is lacking in so much as elitism from Plato’s term has built upon itself in a muddy way for the masses and its also a
Uccisore will say its not muddy because he understands it perfectly, and I would agree he does, but here we are with the masses of people saying knowledge is belief or that belief is knowledge and truth is neither, or truth is knowledge or that belief. All of this disagreement I suspect has its roots in inept academic elitism that compounds confusion through lack of clarity and brevity, so the people are not guided on how to think properly because it can’t be really explained in a coherent manner to many people. Something like Plato could easily relate to the masses. But academic epistemology has lacked in defining anything as coherent as that in so much as the broader stroke. It also doesn’t focus on the more important aspects of how knowledge isn’t so much of a belief as has been conveyed, or a belief at all- it instead focuses on how knowledge is a belief and builds off that, because, well, Plato. So how epistemology defines knowledge differs from how I presented the definition of knowledge. People see things as knowledge, then get disproven, people see things as belief and think its knowledge. Who are they to turn to, people that think knowledge is a belief for understanding? There is a better way and a more intelligent way and I contest it can come down to providing a different epistemological framework that discards JBT, discards truth as a requirement for knowledge and puts belief in some reptilian inept form of stupidity that it should be. Also lay it out in a very clear manner that doesn’t consist of overlapping of knowledge, belief, truth and opinion as it currently is in the field, all finding ways to find similarities just because they have already all been deemed similar with JTB, which doesn’t do us any good in parsing our own thoughts I contest.
I see it as simply easiest to think that:
Belief is not knowledge, anything can believe anything they want without any justification whatsoever. Anything can be believed to be true.
Knowledge is not belief, proper justification, reason and logic is required, it a state of understanding, comprehension. Most of it is likely truth, however our subjective experience cannot allow us to say all knowledge is truth.
Doubt is not a belief, but a state of uncertainty, neither belief or knowledge.
Opinion is not a belief, but an extension of our values.
Clear, concise, not muddied.
What science claims are that? Evolution maybe? Relativity? Just curious
Its best understood that knowledge is not truth but understanding, and knowledge is not belief. Then a logical understanding and categorization of belief, knowledge and truth can occur.
You say there is no hard break where one stops and one begins, because academic philosophers have been too busy focusing on JTB, thinking inside Plato’s box.
Categorizing the way the mind thinks is a matter of philosophy, not hard science and I provided reason why the categorization is flawed. How understanding things is not accepting things as true, and that is the crux. How knowledge may never be absolute to always show truth, so therefore losing the requirement of it being truth ought to be dropped.
It seems that you do not want any answer to your question of your thread: “Is knowledge also a belief?” It seems that you want a teatime and an answer to the question: “Do you like another cup of tea?”
Address my argument against your position.
Perhaps you didn’t understand what I wrote, I wrote the basic gist of it, more needs to be said at a later time, as I stated elsewhere in this thread.
Already did, you didn’t argue against my position you argued against definitions.
Right. Two days of me posting my argument and you ignoring it, and now suddenly “Oh but I did reply”. I don’t know what you’re here for, but it isn’t philosophy.
I understand your position, you don’t understand mine. I posted what I wanted. You decided to argue against things that weren’t related to the crux of my position more than anything. I brought about the crux quite a few times and you didn’t care, you went back to definitions again. You provided a lot of noise and obfuscated the discussion over all. Yes, I don’t know what you’re here for, but it isn’t philosophy. So …
Also - the post example didn’t refute my own position like that. Read what I pasted. So why would I respond to something we already discussed? I have no desire to repeat myself over and over when you’re not even tackling the crux of the matter. Your responses became more noise than content and missed the mark. So why would I validate your response as even worthy to respond to since we already discussed it and you didn’t counter me to disprove what my stance was?
When providing a philosophy you need to acknowledge the positions that are against your position, which is something you have shown to be able to do.
knowledge is knowledge when directly dictated by immutable Natural Laws, anything else are beliefs
You are the one who did not understand what almost all others wrote in this thread. That is obvious. You contradict yourself. And when you “agree with everything except knowledge is a subset of information”, then it is ridiculous, because it is like saying “I agree with 100% but not with 99% of your statement”. The main statement was that “knowledge is a subset of information”. And when you say “because information is very broad and goes beyond the mind”, then it becomes even more ridiculous, because it becomes obvious that you did not understand the thesis and its argument you want to criticize. So again: You are the one who did not understand what almost all others wrote in this thread.
By the way: Do you know what you really want? And if yes: What do you really want?
Sorry I did not contradict myself. I did not “agree with everything except knowledge is a subset of information”, You are misunderstanding my position. The main statement was not that knowledge is a subset of information. You’re conflating belief with information, please stop floundering around with red herrings and arguing against a strawman. You don’t understand what I’ve said and you can’t even think clearly enough to argue in a cogent manner, your response is absolutely absurd here, out of everyone you have made the least sense.