knowledge vs. belief

[DIKL]

]



This I know as a fact; it is God's message to me. Will anyone believe it?

From Louis...

Exactly what I am trying to pin down !
How do you define "fact" ? Do you mean "real" because
YOU had direct, personal experience of it ? Do you mean
it must BE real because it FEELS real to YOU ?
( That would not be my definition of "real" - that would
be "subjective" - maybe only imaginary ).
If it is FACT, then it does not need to be "believed" -
it can be DEMONSTRATED. ( That's my definition of
fact ) Others can KNOW it by experiencing it themselves.
Maybe not in the way YOU experienced it, but in
their OWN way.

This right here is at the core of all discussions on religion (or science). I find it extremely interesting. What knowledge can all people agree to? What is a "fact"?

IMHO, there are NO facts.

In a normal discussion, we make a claim (express a belief), which we substantiate with "facts". (Of course, there are argumentations where the speaker doesn't give supporting facts. "My belief is so logical and selfevident that it can only be refuted by non-logical persons. In that case, their arguments are not valid.")

Following the argumentation above: A fact is indeed a fact if it can be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated, it is a belief. I.e., the fact can be put to a test, and if the fact "passes" the test, the fact is now "proven". But, the test must be such that all people - i.e. not only the one that designed the test - can agree to that it is "suitable" for proving or disproving the belief!

Ergo, the disagreement is moved from whether or not the BELIEF is true to whether or not the FACT is true.

Example:
Claim: There is a God!
Fact/Proof: The Holy Bible says so.


In conclusion: There are no "facts". Just beliefs supported by other beliefs. (And that's the fact Jack!

What do you guys think?

Regards,
DIKL

 

[Thomas]

Trouble is... anything that is NOT knowledge ( such as
belief ) must be LESS than knowledge... and have LESS VALUE than knowledge.

Only when knowledge has a marketable value and a trading commodity - which indeed is the way the world is heading. As William James said, "Philosophy bakes no bread".

Put it this way:

Trouble is ... anyone who is NOT working ... must be worth LESS than someone who IS ... and effectively the PERSON has no intrinsic value, but is justified only by the WORK done.

Has anyone studied cognitive theory?

To assume that 'belief' is founded on nothing but imagination and fantasy, that it lacks logic and requires the suspension of reason, is a fallacious argument, which signifies a lack in itself of clear thought processes.

Too often a philosophical question gets swamped in emotive responses.

Thomas

 

[DIKL]

To assume that 'belief' is founded on nothing but imagination and fantasy, that it lacks logic and requires the suspension of reason, is a fallacious argument, which signifies a lack in itself of clear thought processes.

Too often a philosophical question gets swamped in emotive responses.
Thomas

Now, I could rewrite the above to something more provocative:
To assume that 'belief' has only properties A and B, lacks property C and requires property D is wrong. Therefore the assumption signifies a lack ... of clear thought.

This brings us into the "emotive responses". Emotive means "appealing to one's emotions". I believe all communication between human beings elicit some emotional response. I am assuming that is a basic human trait. In that case all questions, including philosophical ones, are "swamped" in emotive responses. Is that good, bad or ...?

In this case, the emotion that Thomas' reply arouses in me is that it makes me wonder if he is angry at one of the previous posters.

I for one am not claiming that a "belief" is worth less than "knowledge". Rather, I think that even "knowledge" itself is based on beliefs. (See my previous post.)

Take care,
DIKL

 

[Thomas]

In conclusion: There are no "facts". Just beliefs supported by other beliefs.

I'm not with you on this one, DIKL. What about the fruits of empirical science? Is the boiling point or freezing point of water a fact, or a belief?

So we have verifiable data: gravity, cause and effect, etc.

From here we extrapolate what is, or might be possible. We have a number of ideas, and we measure these ideas against the data and discard those that suggest they are wrong, and examine those we believe to be the case - this is science at work - and eventually (hopefully) arrive at a conclusion, a proof, and thereby, a fact.

Now the scientist might work on a belief, or even a hope, that there are black holes, or that an aircraft can break the sound barrier - but a good scientist does not let his emotions or his beliefs cloud his reasoning.

A notable exception was the cold fusion fiasco which suggests that when the scientists could not make it work, they began to fabricate the evidence that it did. There have been other cases.

(There have been cases of the exact opposite, for example when the phonograph was demonstrated to scientists who believed that everything that can be discovered had been discovered, as the phonograph had not been already discovered, it was obviously a trick. The inventor was accused of throwing his voice, and all manner of chicanery!)

Then there are 'theories' which cannot be demonstrated, like evolution, but can be accepted as reliable. Like e=mc2, or Pythogoras' Theorem.

Then we can launch into Quantum theory, and here we are on the threshold in which scientists talk about theories as beliefs, but they are careful to distinguish between such beliefs, and such facts.

+++

In the Doctrine of Catholicism it is axiomatic that the datum of Revelation is a matter of Faith, but that what man is asked to believe, in faith, should not be contrary to reason.

Now some might immediate baulk at his, but the point is, as Aquinas stated, regarding metaphysics, you "can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections.”

That last phrase is key - refusal to concede does not make someone right or wrong, but simply means that one refuses to accept the answer to objections.

When I was serving on jury duty, the judge said:
"It is the business of the court to lay the facts before you, it is your duty to decide upon the truth."

It is something I return to often.

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

Belief - an assent to a proposition or an affirmation, the acceptance of a fact, opinion or assertation as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or abosute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence. Belief admits of all degrees from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance.

Knowledge - The act or state of knowing, clear perception of fact, truth, or duty, certain apprehension, familiar cognizance; cognition, the highest degree of speculative faculties, consists in the perception of the truth of affirmative or negative propostitions.

It seems to me the difference between "Knowledge" and "Belief" is simple.

Knowledge is an objective perception of things, wherein

Belief is the acceptance of the perception of things.

Knowledge is the acquiring of information or data, wherein

Belief is an opinion formed either based on acquired information or data, or based on intuitive insight (information or data not logically and/or methodically acquired.

Knowledge is objective, wherein Belief is subjective.

I see through my eyes, hear through my ears, feel with my nerves, move with my limbs, sense the rhythms of my body, form thoughts in my mind (these things I observe, hence my cognition or knowledge).

I therefore believe I am alive (my assenting perception of this "truth").

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[mee]

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. John 17;3 so who is the true God?

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​

You alone are the Most High over all the earth psalm 83;18

 

[DIKL]

In conclusion: There are no "facts". Just beliefs supported by other beliefs.

I'm not with you on this one, DIKL. What about the fruits of empirical science? Is the boiling point or freezing point of water a fact, or a belief?

So we have verifiable data: gravity, cause and effect, etc.

I agree Thomas. We can use observations of natural phenomena, like boiling water or gravity as common ground and first stepping stone for further understanding. Maybe we could call the observations "facts", as all human beings could agree to seeing the same thing.

However, as soon as we try to interpret the observation, we're getting into beliefs. When using the word "gravity", we are already in an explanation model rooted in Newton and Einstein. I believe that the the observation that all objects fall toward the centre of the earth has been "explained" since the dawn of man. In ancient Greece, I believe the theory was that "matter wants to unite and be whole, so it's natural that objects fall down to earth". Later, Newton said that matter attracts matter. Even later, Einstein said it is not matter attracting matter - it is matter curving the fabric of universe, with implications even for light itself. Notice that Newtons models haven't been discarded, they are still valid and even more practical than Einsteins for "non-relativistic" conditions (e.g. for velocities <1/3 of the speed of light).

In the scientific tradition, a theory is valuable if it can predict natural phenomena. Theories that predict with accuracy and under many different conditions replace more "vague" theories. So, theories come and go in an almost Darwinian manner. Still, some of them have been around for long and are considered "laws" - not theories - of nature.

Here's a quote how scientific ideas evolve that I find interesting. It's from the book "Foresight and Understanding - An enquiry into the aims of Science" by Stephen Toulmin:
"For, though Nature must of course be left to answer to our interrogations for herself, it is always we who frame the questions. And the questions we ask inevitably depend on prior theoretical considerations. We are here concerned, not with prejudiced belief, but rather with preformed concepts; and, to understand the logic of science, we must recognize that 'preconceptions' of this kind are both inevitable and proper - if suitably tentative and subject to reshaping in the light of our experience."

And another quote from the same book:
"There is only one way of seeing one's own spectacles clearly: that is, to take them off. It is impossible to to focus both on them and through them at the same time. A similar difficulty attaches to the fundamental concepts of science. We see the world through them to such an extent that we forget what it would look like without them: our very commitment to them tends to blind us to other possibilities. Yet a proper sense of the growth and development of our ideas will come only if we are prepared to unthink them.

We are justified in placing the trust in them that we do, only because - and to the extent that - they have proved their worht in competition with alternatives: if earlier men had never thought in other terms than we do, then we we ourselves would simply be carrying on a traditional habit. We shall understand the merits of your own ideas, instead of taking them for granted, only if we are prepared to look at these alternatives on their own terms and recognize why they failed."

 

[Thomas]

Hi DIKL -

This is indeed a slippery topic - probably better suited to the 'Philosophy' section, but wortth discussion none the less.

I can't afford to get too involved right now ... I'm deep into Lonergan and Cognitive Theory as a means of determining Objectivity ... so its relevant to ths discussion, but I don't want to pre-empt my own learning process by jumping to conclusions before the data has had time to 'sink in'.

But to give you an idea of where I am, otherwise:
I think we're skirting around the idea of what constitutes a 'fact' - and are such facts then carved in stone, as it were, for it would appear, as you demonstrate, they are not, and I can agree with that. Facts are like truths in this sense, then can change.

On another tack, 'philosophy' ceases to be meaningful when it arrives at a situation of 'this is it' as it were - philosophy must always acknowledge that it is 'an enquiry' and once an answer has been attained, that is no reason for the enquiry to cease, rather it moves on.

I 'believe' there are facts ... slam your fingers in the door, the functioning of a mousetrap, the earth orbits the sun, people grow older, not younger ... can we say there are 'laws' which govern and determine nature, and such laws determine the facts, even if we are uncertain as to precisely how, and why, such laws function?

My big issue in this kind of debate is people who argue the case for relativity, that every position is equal to every other position, than nothing can be said for sure, etc., etc.

Pope Benedict talks of the 'dictatorship of relativism', which I would call the tyranny of mediocrity ... and which leads to an 'intellectual nihilism' which is an abdication of responsibility.

Hope that gives you some idea. I think that when a physicist says 'nothing is real' such a phrase gets picked up and passes into the language of popular culture, so everyone says, 'nothing is real' - but I bet the physicist would be horrified at how that phrase is applied.

Loose thoughts, I know, but time presses...

Thomas

 

[DIKL]

Belief - an assent to a proposition or an affirmation, the acceptance of a fact, opinion or assertation as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or abosute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence. Belief admits of all degrees from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance.

Knowledge - The act or state of knowing, clear perception of fact, truth, or duty, certain apprehension, familiar cognizance; cognition, the highest degree of speculative faculties, consists in the perception of the truth of affirmative or negative propostitions.

With these definitions in mind, let me then ask a few questions. Do we believe or know that Earth is round? I mean, we haven't verified it ourselves, have we? We know it's round because all people and all books around us say it's round. (Except, of course, the Flat Earth Society What about the speed of light? Why does water boil? What is water?

All of us that aren't experts will probably revert to books and such to answer the questions. And according to the definition above, a belief consists of "reliance on word or testimony". Notice also, that belief "admits of all degrees from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance". What is then the difference between a belief in which I have the fullest assurance, and something I know?

It seems to me the difference between "Knowledge" and "Belief" is simple.

Knowledge is an objective perception of things, wherein

Belief is the acceptance of the perception of things.

The definition states that knowledge is "clear perception" of things, whereas you state "objective" perceptions of things. For me, these are different things. If I have clear perception of something and I am 100% convinced it is true, there is no guarantee that you will agree to it and consider it "knowledge". "Objective" perception could be obtained, maybe, through a measuring device, but only if we both agree that the device is suitable for study of the topic at hand. Stated differently, I think that knowledge is a belief that the majority of people deem true.

 

[DIKL]

Hi DIKL -

This is indeed a slippery topic - probably better suited to the 'Philosophy' section, but wortth discussion none the less.

From what I can see, most of the topics on CR are somewhat 'slippery'. And all of them are worth the discussion, I believe. Places like this are gems on the Internet.

I can't afford to get too involved right now ... I'm deep into Lonergan and Cognitive Theory as a means of determining Objectivity ... so its relevant to ths discussion, but I don't want to pre-empt my own learning process by jumping to conclusions before the data has had time to 'sink in'.

It honors you that you respect your subject so much that you'd stay out of the discussion to protect yourself from bias. But I'm grateful for your comments so far. You and the others enable me to understand my own ideas better. Hope for more!

My big issue in this kind of debate is people who argue the case for relativity, that every position is equal to every other position, than nothing can be said for sure, etc., etc.

I understand. My issue is contrary. I see much more people that are too sure the world is "like this and only like this!".

Still, coming from opposite perspectives, I think we are mutually benefiting from the discussion!

Pope Benedict talks of the 'dictatorship of relativism', which I would call the tyranny of mediocrity ... and which leads to an 'intellectual nihilism' which is an abdication of responsibility.

And a sad world that would lead to, I agree fully with you. But, I hope you don't take offence in my stance. I really do believe that all positions are equal in worth. The universe holds countless possibilities, and each human has his intepretation of each possibility. I cannot help but feel humble in front of such complexity.
Nevertheless, I believe that we must have the courage to take a position and to act, in spite of all this insecurity. As we act, we are also showing what position we deem 'truer' than all other.

Thomas, your discomfort with this all-encompassing insecurity (that's my intepretation, at least) is at the core of another of my questions. Do we have religions and science because we 'need' explanations of the world?

Loose thoughts, I know, but time presses...

Thomas

Thanks for sharing them.

DIKL

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

Uh. Yes, good and evil are entirely human cultural contructs. IMO.

Nature is my darling, because She is the only darling, but I also know that She is sharp of tooth and bloody of claw.

I would assert that this is not "evil". And, really, the natural world doesn't kill "indiscriminately"; think of how populations are controlled without human interference - how a greater food supply stimulates the bearing of more offspring...how ovepopulation of one species results in a population surge in the predators of that species.

There is no *intent to harm* in any of this, which is what evil is, IMO. There is no joy in causing suffering.

There is just the wheel, turning this way and then that, to keep things in balance.

This is an interesting perspective, one I have been seeking to exchange views with. I see you are slowly going through a lot of the older threads, and I am thrilled that you are adding your perspective to them.

I want to be sure I am not imposing, but at your convenience could I ask you to consider looking at the "morality in evolution" thread in the philosophy section. It is very long, I am not asking you look at all of it, but the first page or two (about 30 posts). There you will see I asked a question that would be suited to your outlook, in that I would be interested to hear what you may have to add.

Thank you in advance. I want to add I think you are a great sport. It is seldom we get active participation from pagans outside of the pagan board. It is appreciated, on my part.

 

[Käthe]

juantoo3,

I'll look at the thread you suggested as I have time.

Thank you for your welcoming attitude, I appreciate it.

As for participating anywhere and everywhere...why, I'm a Pagan, and the whole wide Multiverse is my Church, so why not play/dance/worship in all of it?

 

[Käthe]

Pope Benedict talks of the 'dictatorship of relativism', which I would call the tyranny of mediocrity ... and which leads to an 'intellectual nihilism' which is an abdication of responsibility.

Thomas

This is completely at odds with my own thinking on this matter.

Because I know that I am the source of my thoughts and feelings and beliefs (and judgements and evaluations and so on), I MUST BE personally responsible for what they bring about. There is no abdication of responsibility; just the opposite, in fact.

I own my "relative" views of things. My ownership applies even to those things I have "inherited" and have not examined.

 

[Käthe]

I see you are slowly going through a lot of the older threads, and I am thrilled that you are adding your perspective to them.

I'm doing this in my own peculiar way; by clicking on the "what's going on" thingie, and scanning through the topics that are currently being viewed, either by real people or by those odd things called spiderbots or whatever. When a topic title listed there catches my attention, I click on over to it and give it a look-see. (It's kind of like throwing lots).

At some point I may decide to thoroughly investigate one board at a time by going back to the first pages of topics and working my way forward, but for the time being I'm quite happy to follow the method I'm using right now to find things of interest.

 

[lunamoth]

I think that there are different kinds of knowledge and to have a meaningful conversation the particpants need to first agree to what kind of knowledge they are talking about. I'm not a philosophy scholar, so I apologize in advance to laying out an amateur's framework for this.

scientific or literal knowledge--knowing based upon fact supportable, or at least theoretically supportable, by material evidence and observation.

wisdom knowledge--knowing based upon culture or tradition, or in contrast to culture/tradition (one way or another it is in reference to tradition)

sacred knowledge--knowing based upon faith (in the lack of objective evidence, not in spite of contrary evidence)

rational knowledge--knowing based upon reason--must accept a base assumption, even if that base assumption is "only things that I can touch/observe/measure are real."

I also see that there is overlap in these catagories. So, for example, I consider Jesus turning water into wine as sacred knowledge. As literal knowledge I would expect to find material evidence that such a thing is possible without trickery or illusion. It is also wisdom knowledge in that it teaches us something about Christ's mission in contrast to conventional/traditional wisdom.

just some thought,
lunamoth

 

[DIKL]

scientific or literal knowledge--knowing based upon fact supportable, or at least theoretically supportable, by material evidence and observation.

wisdom knowledge--knowing based upon culture or tradition, or in contrast to culture/tradition (one way or another it is in reference to tradition)

sacred knowledge--knowing based upon faith (in the lack of objective evidence, not in spite of contrary evidence)

rational knowledge--knowing based upon reason--must accept a base assumption, even if that base assumption is "only things that I can touch/observe/measure are real."

Ok. How do you go on to use your model and understand the relationship between belief and the four knowledge categories? Are there four corresponding belief categories, as well?

Also, I suppose that you would like to have a set of categories that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. I am not sure that, for example, rational knowledge isn't really part of scientific knowledge (or vice versa).

 

[lunamoth]

Just thought about the term gnosis, which is also knowledge or perhaps more specifically 'recognition.' Maybe another way to say this is 'unveiling' that which is there but we previously failed to see. Thus, there is no new information given, but a new understanding or a paradigm shift. I think this is seen in our baptism where the Holy Spirit, which is always present, is not so much as imparted as it is discovered as our old self dies. Likewise, opening up the parables of the Kingdom of God show that that Kingdom is not something to be built as much as it is something to be found.

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Ok. How do you go on to use your model and understand the relationship between belief and the four knowledge categories? Are there four corresponding belief categories, as well?

Also, I suppose that you would like to have a set of categories that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. I am not sure that, for example, rational knowledge isn't really part of scientific knowledge (or vice versa).

Hi DIKL,

I edited my post to reflect that these types of knowledge are not mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

Belief is a slippery word, even more so than knowledge. That's why I disagree with Thomas, or perhaps it was you, when above it was said that scientists have 'beliefs' about their work. Scientific language is intentionally precise and non-emotive, even if it is true that scientists can not always perfectly separate objectivity from subjectivity. That's why we have peer review to expose those things that are not empirical. A scientist will use the term hypothesis. A well-supported hypothesis may be considered a theory. Data are measurable facts.

But you are right that to have a meaningful conversation about belief the definition of 'belief' must first be agreed upon, just as the definition of knowledge must be agreed upon. I realize that in philosophy there are definitions of these things already, but not all of us converse in philosophical logic.

Anyway, to answer your question, I would place belief within the catagories of wisdom or sacred knowledge, which I have already said are not mutually exclusive. I see sacred knowledge as knowledge supported by divine revelation. Thus, if that divine revelation is found in an accepted scripture or tradition, as in Christianity, then sacred knowledge is a subset of wisdom knowledge. But if that divine revelation is personally received, then it may or may not also be wisdom, depending exactly what the belief is about (i.e., personal or community).

 

[DIKL]

Just thought about the term gnosis, which is also knowledge or perhaps more specifically 'recognition.' Maybe another way to say this is 'unveiling' that which is there but we previously failed to see. Thus, there is no new information given, but a new understanding or a paradigm shift. I think this is seen in our baptism where the Holy Spirit, which is always present, is not so much as imparted as it is discovered as our old self dies. Likewise, opening up the parables of the Kingdom of God show that that Kingdom is not something to be built as much as it is something to be found.

lunamoth

Hmm, interesting. Knowledge as a fixed star, always there, clouded but waiting to be sighted.

Right now I'm thinking of a discussion around knowledge as a function of 'degree of uncertainty' and 'degree of agreement'. Quahom1 has posted definitions of belief and knowledge that I found thought-provoking...
I'm visualizing a person that starts with a vague belief, full of doubt...he studies the matter, gathers observations, formulates theories...doubt begins to scatter, i.e. the 'degree of uncertainty' decreases as he turns more and more convinced of the 'truth'...

Finally, there is no doubt and uncertainty whatsoever. Then the belief has been replaced by 'knowledge'. Or is there more to it?
Maybe others have to agree to the new truth for it to really be considered true? Or is it enough that a single person has no doubt in his mind?

I guess I'm looking at knowledge as a social dimension, something that is created by the perception and social structures of human kind, and thus, constantly changing and never fixed. Hmm.

Just some unstructured thoughts, sorry.

DIKL

 

[lunamoth]

Further, sacred knowledge is also rational knowledge. The difference is that the base assumption does not require a material proof. In fact, even the statement I chose as an example of rational knowledge, "only things that I can touch/observe/measure are real," or Descatres famous "I think therefore I am," are basic assumptions that can't be proved. In essence, even these are based on a certain amount of faith.

lunamoth