I’m not interested in what the dictionary says or a textbook definition I’m interested in your personal distinction between the two ideas. How do you decide to put an idea in one category versus the other? I’m not interested in the abstract concepts like ‘objective truth’ I want to know how it works in real life for you.
That’s a pretty simple distinction, but you’ve asked for us to define abstract concepts without using definitions or abstract concepts. So let’s just say, knowledge is what you know and beliefs are what you believe. A belief implies some level of doubt, while knowledge is just the information you have in your head. There is a lot of overlap. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, because I understand how the earth rotates and orbits the sun. I believe it will happen because I understand physics and observable phenomena. Put it another way, it is a high-confidence belief based on the knowledge obtained through observation and study. Some beliefs are based on nothing more than hope, and some knowledge is beyond any doubt. I believe the Phillies can win the World Series, but I know our bullpen pitches cantaloupes and our hitters are streaky as shit.
Your last example reminds me of someone editing Wikipedia to list Ronnie O’Sullivan as the winner of the World Open, about 20 minutes before the final match finished.
They were right, and anyone would agree that it was all-but-certain, but it hadn’t actually happened yet.
What if you should have some doubt (belief) but due to ignorance or hubris do not and so you elevate a concept to ‘knowledge’ that should not rightfully be there? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m genuinely curious about that gray area of misplaced confidence.
Then you apply the scientific method and/or research in search of truth.
It sounds like you’re interested in epistemology. Take a dive into this Wikipedia article and give at least the parts on Justified True Beliefs a read.
No I’m not. I am not interested in academic study. I am interested in real world application. I am aware of justified true belief and that most people don’t apply it. My curiosity is in how people acnually think about the concept.
That’s a fair question, but we’re in danger of conflating two different concepts. Knowledge is the information, and belief is the action. It’s a little bit like having money vs spending money. You can have money, you can spend money, and you can have spending money, and you can spend money you don’t have. These are all slightly different concepts despite using the same words.
When you think you know something, but you are mistaken, we call that a “belief” even though you did not doubt it. You believe you know something without a doubt, but you are wrong. You do not know, and you should doubt your belief. But you would never describe it as a belief, because you do not believe you do not know for certain.
knowledge is provable, repeatable, demonstratable. faith is by its very nature none of those.
Just to help, you can’t have knowledge about something that is based around faith. For example, the Bible requires faith for you to believe in God, however you can have extensive knowledge about what the Bible says without actually believing any of the religious bullshit.
One could argue that the more knowledge one has of the bible, the greater degree of faith one needs to believe in it.
At some point on that linear curve, a make or break decision needs to be made. Here, I made a graph:
indeed
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so the dialectical theory of knowledge. What starts as ideas are tested and confirmed or denied in reality, which then sharpens ideas to be retested and confirmed or denied in reality again, in a spiral. Ideas come from real, material conditions, and it is through this cycle that theory meets practice, sharpening each more effectively.
What’s Marxism have to do with it? Sounds exactly like the scientific method to me. Applying it to politics is an unnecessary step in this discussion.
How familiar are you with Dialectical Materialism? That’s a Marxist conception, very similar to the scientific method. Marx wasn’t just an advocate for Socialized production and eventually Communism out of any moral superiority to Capitalism, but because he applied Dialectical and Historical Materialist analysis to Capitalism to predict where it was headed: monopoly and centralized syndicates, ripe for siezure and public planning.
The Dialectical theory of knowledge is similar to an endless refinement and spiral of the scientific method.
Not familiar at all, that’s why I asked! Thanks, I’ll have to read some.
My favorite primer is Elementary Principles of Philosophy, it’s great and starts from the very beginning.
What about the ideas that can be neither confirmed nor denied like the existence of extraterrestrial life or a machine of 100% efficiency?
Why believe in it beyond the conception that it’s possible?
I would say that beliefs are unprovable, and knowledge is provable. If I claim the sun will rise tomorrow, we can test that. If I claim god exists but is hiding, we cannot test that. The former is knowledge, the latter belief
I don’t classify ideas in my head into those two categories like that. They are all beliefs. I have a sense of how confident I am of each idea. Like how surprised I would be if they were proved wrong. And I try to maintain awareness of why I have that confidence, like other beliefs that support it, evidence, etc.
That’s imperfect, like I can’t claim that there aren’t ideas that, if challenged, I’d think about what my supporting evidence is and come up with bupkis. Anything is up for doubt and reevaluation.
I feel pretty strongly that this is the right approach, and that people failing to have a similar approach is a serious problem in the world.
Belief doesn’t need confirmation, but knowledge assumes some confirmation.
I define it by whether something is independently verifiable.
I am told that there are 8* planets in our solar system, and where they are located. If I wanted to, I could buy a big telescope, point it at the sky and find all 8.
I am told that it is possible to boil water through nuclear fission. If I had the means, I could take a number of resources, spend decades researching nuclear physics, build my own test reactor, and verify that this is possible.
I am told that the earth is flat. I could get a pilots license, buy a plane, and fly to Antarctica to see the ice wall. I would find that there is no ice wall, just a number of scientists who are very passionate about ice samples. Therefore, it is not independently verifyable.
I don’t have the money to verify all of these claims, but they are all claims that have been verified by hundreds, if not thousands of independent people and organizations throughout history.
There should be absolutely no room for any kind of personal distinction between the two.
Knowledge can be proven.
Faith/belief cannot be proven.If you can prove something is real then you cannot believe in it.
I don’t believe the moon is real because I have knowledge that it is indeed real, and I can prove it by telling you to just look at it.
I cannot factually know that God doesn’t exist because I cannot prove that using any kind of experiment or test, so I cannot “know” that it’s true no matter how strong my belief in that statement is.Any “personal definition” of either of those is factually wrong. If we could all walk around with our own personal meanings behind concepts we wouldn’t have a functional language.
As neat and tidy as your explanation is, I think you are vastly oversimplifying the concept.
You say the moon is real because you can see it, and you can prove it’s there by telling other people to just go look at it. Alrighty then, I’ve seen bigfoot. In fact, lots of people say they’ve seen bigfoot. Therefore he must exist too, right? The photos “prove” his existence just as much as you pointing to the sky saying the moon exists cause there it is.
Now, I realize that there’s probably some degree of hyperbole in your statement, so I’ll walk this back a little. If the defining metric of your separation between these concepts is whether the hypothesis can be proven through experimentation, that’s all well and good. However, I would argue that, in 99.9% of cases, it’s still a belief statement. Let’s continue with the moon example, but, rather than “seeing is knowing”, let’s apply the same standard that you applied to God. So, you “know” the moon exists, not just because you can see it, but because it’s existence can be empirically proven through experimentation. What sort of experiments would you conduct to do that, exactly? Have you done those experiments? Or, like the rest of the rational world, do you accept that scientists have done those experiments already and decided, yup, moon’s there? Cause, if you’re taking someone else’s word for it, do you personally “know” what they are saying is true, or do you believe them based upon their credentials, the credentials of those who support the argument, and your own personal beliefs/knowledge?
As another example, let’s imagine for a sec we’re philosophers/scientists of the ancient world. I have a theory that the heavier something is, the faster it will fall. You may know where I’m going with this if you remember your elementary school science classes. I believe in the power of experimental evidence, and so, to test my theory, I climb to the top of the Acropolis and drop a feather and a rock. The feather falls much more slowly than the rock. Eureka, I’ve proved my theory and therefore I now KNOW that an object’s weight affects its fall.
Now, anyone not born in 850 BC Athens in this thread will point out that it’s a flawed experiment, since I’m not controlling for air resistance, and if you conducted the same experiment in a vacuum chamber, both objects would fall at the the same rate. However, the technology to test my hypothesis with all of the salient variables controlled did not exist at that time. So, even though it’s now widely known that my experiment was flawed, it wouldn’t have been at the time, and I would have the data to back up my theory. I could simply say try it yourself, it’s a self-evident fact.
Finally, your statement about subjectivity of definition being an obstacle to functional language is so alarmist as to border on ridiculous. If this question were “how do you personally define the distinction between ‘yes’ and ‘no’”, then sure I can get on board a little bit more with your point. However this is much more like ‘twilight’ vs ‘dusk’. Crack open a dictionary and you’ll find that there is a stark, objective distinction between those terms, much as you pointed out that belief and knowledge have very different definitions. For the record, since I had to look it up to ensure I wasn’t telling tales here, sunset is the moment the sun finishes crossing the horizon, twilight is the period between sunset and dusk when light is still in the sky but the sun is not, and dusk is the moment the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. So, I know that these are unique terms with specific, mutually exclusive definitions. But let me tell you something, I believe that if I randomly substituted one term for another based purely on my personal whimsy, people are gonna get what I mean regardless.
That’s incredibly naive I’m afraid. This sort of logic works in very simple cases, but quickly breaks down in any complex scenario. The reality is that a lot of knowledge cannot be easily verified because it’s just too complex. Take a peer reviewed scientific study as an example, the study might reference a different study as its basis, that references another study, and so on. If one of the studies in the chain wasn’t conducted properly, and nobody noticed then the whole basis could be flawed. This sort of thing happens all the time in practice.
What you really have is an ideology, which is a set of beliefs that fit together and create a coherent narrative of how the world works. A lot of the knowledge that you integrate into your world view has various biases and interpretations associated with it. Thus, it’s not an absolute truth about the world, but merely an interpretation of it.
Knowledge is something that can be prov
Saying something can be proven in principle isn’t very useful in practical terms. The fact of the matter is that the real world is simply too complex for the human mind to fully understand from first principles. Science is fundamentally about creating models of the world that are useful approximations of reality, it’s not a black and white thing. Asimov explains this well here https://mvellend.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/Asimov_anglosaboteurs.pdf
There is an overlap though, but first I’ll answer your question.
Belief is anything you take as a truth, often without any means of proof. There are conscious beliefs and I guess subconscious ones.
Knowledge is anything you are aware of; your personal recollection of life data.
Therefore anything you consciously believe in requires you to first acquire knowledge of it.
Things get complicated because we usually take in most knowledge as facts and truths, which means we believe in a lot of what we know. But it’s not easy to always know which knowledge actually doesn’t represent reality.
deleted by creator
Knowledge is evidence based and has certainty based off of repeatable observable data. Belief is educated hope, based on the unknown when compared to the known.
I think everyone inhabits a sort of superposition of all possible worlds consistent with their sensory observations. But there are some of those possible worlds with which we identify more strongly—where we feel more ourselves. So belief is a kind of probability multiplied by self-recognition.
For example: “We believe these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal”, etc.—it’s not an assertion of objective truth, it’s a declaration of which world we choose to live in.
So the stronger the feeling of identifying with a concept, the stronger the belief that it is true?
That’s one factor; objective (or Bayesian) probability is the other.
Like, there are too many things that might be true, or that might come to pass, for me to consider all of them at once. So I filter out most of them by dissociating myself from the worlds in which they’re true: saying “I don’t believe that will happen” isn’t saying it’s impossible, it’s saying “I don’t recognize myself in the person that would happen to”.
But the more you commit your sense of self to worlds that are tenuous or impossible, the greater the likelihood that you end up in a real situation where you no longer recognize yourself—and then you face an identity crisis.
Belief regards opinions, in which people have a free choice to accept or reject the idea. There is no notion of rightness or wrongness.
Knowledge regards conclusions from a set of axioms, in which people who accept the axioms are honor-bound to accept the conclusions. To reject the conclusion while accepting the axioms would be wrong.
In my life, this governs when I can freely choose and when I am obliged to accept a claim based on whether I’ve accepted previous claims.
So, if we haven’t studied the underlying axioms or foundation of a conclusion, we cannot have knowledge of it? That seems to imply the only things we have knowledge of are the things we have invested significant time and energy into. It’s that correct?
You don’t need to study axioms in order to accept them, but once you accept them, then you must accept any soundly derived conclusion from them. Belief doesn’t need to be logically consistent, but knowledge does.
As for investing significant time and energy, I would say that that depends on things such as the length of the chain of reasoning or the difficulty/cost of testing a hypothesis or how closely observations match your intuition. Some knowledge is cheap to acquire, such as “the sun rises in the east”, because we can observe it directly and we can clearly identify the direction of east and the sun’s path in the sky is very stable from day to day.
Belief is either something I want to be true, or seems true although I don’t have solid evidence. I believe that in the universe there will be many worlds with living beings that eventually evolve to be comparable to humans in mental capacity and the ability to create, but that due to how space time works we will never directly interact with them. They won’t be close enough, or our time periods of existence won’t match up if either of us attempt interstellar travel. Millions of years is a blink of an eye in the scope of the universe, but it is so vast that the odds are high that another planet will have similar conditions for carbon based life, not to mention other possible forms of life.
Knowledge is supported by evidence. It might not be a perfect explanation or understanding, but it is what is known based on the current information. We now know planets exist around other stars, but before we could observe them it would be a belief to say they existed. The difference is supporting evidence.
deleted by creator
That is like the home owner’s application of the scientific method: test the hypothesis until you decide it is a pretty solid system
