- #1
omin
- 187
- 1
I would like to discuss the difference between belief and knowledge. How do we come to know? And how do we come to believe?
Belief vs. Knowledge: Understanding the Difference and How We Attain Them
- Thread starter omin
- Start date
In summary, Lao Tzu believes that knowledge and belief are two different things, and that knowing is the experience of reality itself.
- #2
Enos
- 206
- 8
I think the biggest difference is that even though one might know the right thing, their beliefs might believe otherwise.
- #3
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,285
- 3
As a first pass, I would characterize knowledge as a strong kind of belief, specifically a belief that is regarded to be so well-justified that it cannot be wrong.
'Belief in X' implies that the believer holds X likely to be true. There are varying degrees of belief, corresponding to varying degrees of certainty. There is nothing semantically wrong with asserting a belief in a proposition that seems obviously or inarguably correct (eg "I believe that I have two eyes"), but typically the word seems to be used in situations where the believer leaves open at least some room for doubt (eg a mathemetician might tentatively say "I believe this theorem is true" without rigorously proving it, or a detective may say "I believe he committed the crime" without having a smoking gun).
'Knowing that X' implies that X has been shown to be correct to a practically inarguable degree, at least by the epistemological standards of the knower(s). That is, knowing that X implies that there is a no, or at least negligible, probability that X is false, as judged by the accepted epistemological standard.
So the only difference between the two appears to be a degree of confidence. Thus the initial question becomes, how do we come to have a high degree of confidence in a proposition, and how do we come to have (practically) absolute confidence in a proposition?
The degree of confidence in a certain proposition must come from the epistemological standards of the person or community in question. A religious community may place absolute epistemological authority in the hands of a prophet and thus come to say that they know that God exists. A scientific community relies on empirical findings, and ultimately inductive principles of inference, to bestow epistemological authority and thus come to say that they know the speed of light is constant in all reference frames via theory and experimentation. Even without science, common sense induction allows us to confidently say that we know the sun will rise tomorrow. The senses give us sufficient confidence to say that we know the sun is in the sky today. The common denominator for claiming knowledge appears to be some kind of epistemological authority in which we place our trust more or less absolutely.
Belief, as a degraded or incomplete form of knowledge, seems to arise as a result of compelling but incomplete appeal to such epistemological authorities. A religious scholar may advocate a certain moral philosophy based on his belief that a prophet's claim should be interpreted in a certain way, but concede that perhaps the prophet intended a somewhat different shade of meaning. A scientist may believe that a certain string theory is true based on an essentially inductive appeal to mathematical rigor and beauty, but admit that he cannot be sure since he can provide no experimental verification. A witness to a crime may believe that a certain suspect is the guilty party, but concede that when he witnessed the crime he was not wearing his glasses.
'Belief in X' implies that the believer holds X likely to be true. There are varying degrees of belief, corresponding to varying degrees of certainty. There is nothing semantically wrong with asserting a belief in a proposition that seems obviously or inarguably correct (eg "I believe that I have two eyes"), but typically the word seems to be used in situations where the believer leaves open at least some room for doubt (eg a mathemetician might tentatively say "I believe this theorem is true" without rigorously proving it, or a detective may say "I believe he committed the crime" without having a smoking gun).
'Knowing that X' implies that X has been shown to be correct to a practically inarguable degree, at least by the epistemological standards of the knower(s). That is, knowing that X implies that there is a no, or at least negligible, probability that X is false, as judged by the accepted epistemological standard.
So the only difference between the two appears to be a degree of confidence. Thus the initial question becomes, how do we come to have a high degree of confidence in a proposition, and how do we come to have (practically) absolute confidence in a proposition?
The degree of confidence in a certain proposition must come from the epistemological standards of the person or community in question. A religious community may place absolute epistemological authority in the hands of a prophet and thus come to say that they know that God exists. A scientific community relies on empirical findings, and ultimately inductive principles of inference, to bestow epistemological authority and thus come to say that they know the speed of light is constant in all reference frames via theory and experimentation. Even without science, common sense induction allows us to confidently say that we know the sun will rise tomorrow. The senses give us sufficient confidence to say that we know the sun is in the sky today. The common denominator for claiming knowledge appears to be some kind of epistemological authority in which we place our trust more or less absolutely.
Belief, as a degraded or incomplete form of knowledge, seems to arise as a result of compelling but incomplete appeal to such epistemological authorities. A religious scholar may advocate a certain moral philosophy based on his belief that a prophet's claim should be interpreted in a certain way, but concede that perhaps the prophet intended a somewhat different shade of meaning. A scientist may believe that a certain string theory is true based on an essentially inductive appeal to mathematical rigor and beauty, but admit that he cannot be sure since he can provide no experimental verification. A witness to a crime may believe that a certain suspect is the guilty party, but concede that when he witnessed the crime he was not wearing his glasses.
Last edited:
- #4
wuliheron
- 2,155
- 0
Belief is a colorful hope or fear, the beginning of folly.
Lao Tzu
Beliefs are habits, whereas knowledge can be immediate and spontaneous. For example, I know I am sitting down, but in order to articulate that I rely on my habits of language.
Is the world flat or round? Obviously it is both depending upon your point of view. Words such as flat and round, knowledge and belief only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. However, that context always begins with ourselves.
Lao Tzu
Beliefs are habits, whereas knowledge can be immediate and spontaneous. For example, I know I am sitting down, but in order to articulate that I rely on my habits of language.
Is the world flat or round? Obviously it is both depending upon your point of view. Words such as flat and round, knowledge and belief only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. However, that context always begins with ourselves.
- #5
Janitor
Science Advisor
- 1,109
- 1
I was jawing with a co-worker one time, and somehow we got onto this same topic. He thought he was onto something of philosophical importance when he said, "We all have our own truth. If some statement X is true to me, then it won't do you any good to say that it is false, because it is still true to me." I asked him how such a claim was any different than saying, "I believe in X," and while he had no cogent answer to that, he still insisted his idea was profound. I was tempted to say, "It is true to me that your claim is a hollow shell of an idea," but I resisted the temptation.
Last edited:
- #6
TENYEARS
- 472
- 0
There is a state of mind where you can just know. Belief has nothing to do with reality, the believer may be believing correct or incorrect. Knowing is beyond belief. It is reality itself. Knowing is not learned it is an experience of reality in which aspects of relative reality may be known. Relative reality does not have to come into play, but it does because for the most part that is how we operate.
- #7
olde drunk
- 528
- 0
Ah, but you can never know that you know!
You can only BELIEVE that you know.
sorry, but even knowing gets reduced to a belief.
love&peace,
olde drunk
You can only BELIEVE that you know.
sorry, but even knowing gets reduced to a belief.
love&peace,
olde drunk
- #8
Royce
- 1,539
- 0
olde drunk said:
There is a knowing beyond belief in which one knows that one knows, an experience, a revelation or event that supersedes normal sensual inputs and perceptions that goes directly to our inner most being and we know that it is True.
In the old PF's, when we used to have a signature, mine stated that I know nothing; but, I have and opinion on everything. I later changed it to read; "Okay, I know a few things, just a few..." A few of those few things are experiences likes those I mention above. How do I know that I know? I don't know. I just know with every fiber of my being that it is True and that I Know it to be True.
Of course, it could have been just another psychotic episode.
- #9
omin
- 187
- 1
olde drunk said:
I think this is a good point. Because, people can not know they are believing when they think they know. That is, if, you think there is a difference between knowing and believing, which keeps them from equivalent defintions.
I'd say all knowledge has categories. Direct experience would be the first knowledge. AIndirect knowledge would be facts, which are symobos of some sort, language or thoughts etc, that represent something that exists in the world, past or present.
Belief is simpley the order of empirical thoughts or memory ordering, when the elements (the direct experience memories) are magnified in the persons theory to a point that extends to far into the past or too far into the future or defies the physical laws of the present in some way.
Although reasoning is simple ordering of empirical thought memories, but stay close to a high magnitude of knowledge and precision in makeing claims about the past, present or future.
The war upon the Iraqis is a belief system. There is no quantified empirical basis for it. Even the after the fact logic is proof of an ignorant man's basis, that justifies it with a situation that is worse. The world is apt to disagree with beliefs when they come to promoting the murder of humanity, unless they are like German masses back a few decades ago, THE REPUBLICAN RETARDS. Boy, how did those Germans ever let that happen?, just like the Republicans are, it's called desensitiziation, denial, apathy, and ignorance of the actual casualties in theire face! But the knowledge in the war is that Bush is responsible for the murder of the Iraqis. He stood out and said he wanted to do it, but it called it by a different kind of name, freedom, and we all can see the're situatioin is much worse now.
- #10
olde drunk
- 528
- 0
I agree with Royce, however --- I know I know because I BELIEVE that I know certain truths for me. Again, there is that foundation of belief.
The 'knowing' we are referring to is an intuitive knowledge. Without commandments, we still know that it is wrong to kill. All killing must be justified for acceptance because we know that it is wrong.
Does anyone believe that only Bush and the republicans wanted this war? Sorry, but that is naive.
More importantly, let's preach peace and not point fingers. Blaming anyone but ourself is a waste of energy.
love&peace,
olde drunk
The 'knowing' we are referring to is an intuitive knowledge. Without commandments, we still know that it is wrong to kill. All killing must be justified for acceptance because we know that it is wrong.
Does anyone believe that only Bush and the republicans wanted this war? Sorry, but that is naive.
More importantly, let's preach peace and not point fingers. Blaming anyone but ourself is a waste of energy.
love&peace,
olde drunk
- #11
omin
- 187
- 1
Olde drunk,
Do you think knowledge can come by any other means than via the five senses?
Do you think knowledge can come by any other means than via the five senses?
- #12
Janitor
Science Advisor
- 1,109
- 1
I was listening to Christian radio this morning. The host of the show provided a website for the station. I just went to that site, and I found a link from it to this page:
http://www.arizonaoriginscienceassoc.com/TestAnswers.htm
I am providing the same link in this thread because it asks the question, "Have you been educated or have you been indoctrinated?" The Creationists who wrote the quiz surely believe that Evolutionists have merely been indoctrinated.
Item 8 in the quiz seems to imply that living things violate the Second Law, and also seems to imply that Earth prior to the time of the first living cell had nothing that increased in complexity. This is an argument that I have heard from Creationists several times, always delivered with a "gotcha!" tone of voice. I think Creationists are operating from a lack of understanding of thermodynamics when they go this route (particularly the fact that the Sun's presence 93 million miles away makes the Earth far from a closed system), but maybe that just means I am a brainwashed lackey of the Evolutionists.
Maybe somebody with credentials in thermal physics will see this and provide some ammo to use back at Creationists on matters of the Second Law.
http://www.arizonaoriginscienceassoc.com/TestAnswers.htm
I am providing the same link in this thread because it asks the question, "Have you been educated or have you been indoctrinated?" The Creationists who wrote the quiz surely believe that Evolutionists have merely been indoctrinated.
Item 8 in the quiz seems to imply that living things violate the Second Law, and also seems to imply that Earth prior to the time of the first living cell had nothing that increased in complexity. This is an argument that I have heard from Creationists several times, always delivered with a "gotcha!" tone of voice. I think Creationists are operating from a lack of understanding of thermodynamics when they go this route (particularly the fact that the Sun's presence 93 million miles away makes the Earth far from a closed system), but maybe that just means I am a brainwashed lackey of the Evolutionists.
Maybe somebody with credentials in thermal physics will see this and provide some ammo to use back at Creationists on matters of the Second Law.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #13
Mahler765
- 18
- 0
Define Things First
Everyone keeps giving examples of the difference between knowledge and belief but they are all different examples of different things because knowledge and belief have not been defined. For my personal argument, knowledge is an absolute belief while belief is a statement supported by evidence.
Human Beings can not "know" anything because we are not in a position to know. The comment about basing truth and knowledge on empirical evidence is worthless because our sense are false. Everyone has a different perspective and experience of the same object, idea, etc. Not to mention the the notion of empirical senses are defunct because of the argument of Zeno's Paradox(but I've heard that can be explained by time ??)
Human Beings can only believe in things. Even scientific laws are based on belief in precedence. There is nothing that states that the second law of thermodynamics will be obeyed all the time. It is only a law because it has never been disobeyed(that we know of).
Back to the empirical reasoning question. The Zeno Paradox states that we can never actually "touch" something else thus we can not use the senses as proof of existence. Western philosophy has tried to 'throw out" matter in general because it can not be empirically proved to exist. David Hume said that if matter is going to be thrown out then why not throw out the mind? Has anyone ever seen or touched a mind? So we actually "know" nothing. We believe in ideas, matter, etc. based on past and previous experiences.
I'm personally a supporter of Plato's Theory of Forms which states that everything in this world is simply a shadow of the perfect. Even math. We may say that 2+2=4, but the numbers are only representations of the perfect value. When someone speaks of "happiness" it is only a representation of the perfect happiness. There are certain truths that will always be true. Even after the universe has come to an end, a triangle will always have three sides. If math is a perfect form just as happiness, why can't happiness always be a constant truth even after the universe has ended and humans are no more?
Everyone keeps giving examples of the difference between knowledge and belief but they are all different examples of different things because knowledge and belief have not been defined. For my personal argument, knowledge is an absolute belief while belief is a statement supported by evidence.
Human Beings can not "know" anything because we are not in a position to know. The comment about basing truth and knowledge on empirical evidence is worthless because our sense are false. Everyone has a different perspective and experience of the same object, idea, etc. Not to mention the the notion of empirical senses are defunct because of the argument of Zeno's Paradox(but I've heard that can be explained by time ??)
Human Beings can only believe in things. Even scientific laws are based on belief in precedence. There is nothing that states that the second law of thermodynamics will be obeyed all the time. It is only a law because it has never been disobeyed(that we know of).
Back to the empirical reasoning question. The Zeno Paradox states that we can never actually "touch" something else thus we can not use the senses as proof of existence. Western philosophy has tried to 'throw out" matter in general because it can not be empirically proved to exist. David Hume said that if matter is going to be thrown out then why not throw out the mind? Has anyone ever seen or touched a mind? So we actually "know" nothing. We believe in ideas, matter, etc. based on past and previous experiences.
I'm personally a supporter of Plato's Theory of Forms which states that everything in this world is simply a shadow of the perfect. Even math. We may say that 2+2=4, but the numbers are only representations of the perfect value. When someone speaks of "happiness" it is only a representation of the perfect happiness. There are certain truths that will always be true. Even after the universe has come to an end, a triangle will always have three sides. If math is a perfect form just as happiness, why can't happiness always be a constant truth even after the universe has ended and humans are no more?
- #14
Mahler765
- 18
- 0
I think Creationists are operating from a lack of understanding of thermodynamics when they go this route (particularly the fact that the Sun's presence 93 million miles away makes the Earth far from a closed system), but maybe that just means I am a brainwashed lackey of the Evolutionists.
How exactly does the fact that the Sun exists defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
How exactly does the fact that the Sun exists defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
- #15
olde drunk
- 528
- 0
i find it very interesting that we are all responding with what we BELIEVE.
Mahler makes a significant point. In order to know, in the absolute, we would have to be standing outside of this reality to see the evidence of a fact.
Both creationists and evolutionists are viewing this world through their filter of belief(s). who cares? the fact remains, we are here.
we do gain personal knowledge, however. this knowledge is use to hone, refine our beliefs so that we can get a better handle on what reality really is.
perhaps we should explore how beliefs define reality?
love&peace,
olde drunk
Mahler makes a significant point. In order to know, in the absolute, we would have to be standing outside of this reality to see the evidence of a fact.
Both creationists and evolutionists are viewing this world through their filter of belief(s). who cares? the fact remains, we are here.
we do gain personal knowledge, however. this knowledge is use to hone, refine our beliefs so that we can get a better handle on what reality really is.
perhaps we should explore how beliefs define reality?
love&peace,
olde drunk
- #16
string_theory
- 16
- 0
there are no facts; only interpretations...
i do not know who said this, but I believe it is true... (sorry I said I beleive)
i do not know who said this, but I believe it is true... (sorry I said I beleive)
Last edited:
- #17
saviourmachine
- 96
- 0
To know - to believe
Mahler's definition of knowledge and believe
Relativity of knowledge concept
IMHO it's okay to stress the subjectivity of what we say and think, but we can't stick to it. We've to use them. Why don't we just register our subjectivity and go on with discovering, with reasoning?
'Existence of evidence' versus 'character of the evidence'
The subject is "to believe versus to know". I'll suppose another difference than having 'evidence'. A believer has evidence in the form of personal experiences (or even relics) that others don't take as evidence.
One of the main differences to me seems to be in the continous versus occasional character of confirmation. To have a religious experience occurs not on a very regular basis (as far as I know). Scientific knowledge is about phenomena that are steady over time or at least repeatable.
Definition of to know versus to believe
To know is (within of course the subjective framework we live in), having positive evidence for some case** and continously confirmation. To believe is having positive evidence for some case** and occasionally some confirmation.
Believe
There are people that say that their believe isn't based on 'experience' but on 'innate knowledge'. That's exactly the opposite of your definition.
Paradox
Calling everything 'believe'
Reality as a shadow (of the non-existent?)
Eternal truths
* "I know that for sure" would mean "I am firmly biased about it"
** Sometimes neglecting negative counter evidence, but that can happen to scientific as religieus issues as well.
Mahler's definition of knowledge and believe
What is 'an absolute belief'? Does it not have evidence? Is it 'innate knowledge' that we possess? Why do we call that 'knowledge' (a better name would be 'bias'*)?Mahler765 said:
Relativity of knowledge concept
'How' 'did' 'you' 'know' 'that' 'your' 'senses' 'are' 'false'? What are your conceptions about 'truth' and 'knowledge'? Do you see them totally discoupled from what we 'sense'? Why do you assume that they exist?
IMHO it's okay to stress the subjectivity of what we say and think, but we can't stick to it. We've to use them. Why don't we just register our subjectivity and go on with discovering, with reasoning?
'Existence of evidence' versus 'character of the evidence'
The subject is "to believe versus to know". I'll suppose another difference than having 'evidence'. A believer has evidence in the form of personal experiences (or even relics) that others don't take as evidence.
One of the main differences to me seems to be in the continous versus occasional character of confirmation. To have a religious experience occurs not on a very regular basis (as far as I know). Scientific knowledge is about phenomena that are steady over time or at least repeatable.
Definition of to know versus to believe
To know is (within of course the subjective framework we live in), having positive evidence for some case** and continously confirmation. To believe is having positive evidence for some case** and occasionally some confirmation.
Believe
There are people that say that their believe isn't based on 'experience' but on 'innate knowledge'. That's exactly the opposite of your definition.
Paradox
Do you really think that this is a paradox? Can you explain me why?
Calling everything 'believe'
Hmmm, I'm thinking it over. I think there exist one ontological system, one reality. And that's what I would relate 'knowledge' with. That's just an idea but that idea can be right, isn't it? The fact that everything 'could be' just an idea, just believes, doesn't make an idea just an idea.
Reality as a shadow (of the non-existent?)
I am definitely not a platonist. I think our ability for deductive reasoning [1] gives rise to our concept of 'infinity' and our averaging capabilities [2] to our concept of 'perfectness' and 'supernatural' phenomena (like a perfect circle).
Eternal truths
That presumes the concept 'existence', a non-existent object can be whatever it want to be. Besides, something with three angles and not three sides is even thinkable by humans. Even, if you want to say the 'proposition' "triangle = triangle" is 'always' 'true', what do you mean by that? Do propositions 'exist' when there is no mental world? And, back where we always start: 'what has truth to do with existence?'.
* "I know that for sure" would mean "I am firmly biased about it"
** Sometimes neglecting negative counter evidence, but that can happen to scientific as religieus issues as well.
- #18
saviourmachine
- 96
- 0
And you?
that?). But, mainly I am interested in how others would define 'knowledge' versus 'believe'. How would you?
Anyone?
In two sentences you're using the words 'fact' and 'knowledge'. You're even stating that it is a fact that we are. So you also respond with what you believe. In my last post I summed up several things (but everyone should read it with large subjective brackets around it; does not everyone 'know'olde drunk said:
that?). But, mainly I am interested in how others would define 'knowledge' versus 'believe'. How would you? Anyone?
- #19
Royce
- 1,539
- 0
omin said:
While I am not Olde drunk, I would like to address this question myself.
Absolutely! Most if not all knowledge comes via other means than our 5 senses. Our senses provide us with information not knowledge. Knowledge is what happens after our mind processes the information that it receives from the outside world.
Not only, that which I don't think you had in mind, I believe we can and do receive knowledge direct and complete from a spiritual source both within and without ourselves. Not only is the knowledge complete but so to is our understanding.
I may be wrong but I think that anyone who practices meditation would agree with me that we can receive knowledge from other than our senses. They may however disagree with the source.
- #20
olde drunk
- 528
- 0
ah shucks! this leads right back to truth and/or absolute truth.
I believe the only absolute truth is that there ain't no absolute truth!
When I say "I know", all I am saying is that I accept the fact as my truth, filtered through my belief(s).
IMHO, once we understand the extent or power of our beliefs we will be better able to understand this reality.
My knowledge is a data base of all my experiences that I found important for my understanding of reality. all knowledge is subjective. even the flat-worlders had a reason to reject the information of a round Earth or that it revolved around the sun, etc...
while we, as a matter of social agreement, 'know' that the world is round etc..., use this belief to understand the other events in our world. What kind of information will be revealed in 1000 years to make our current understanding seem foolish?
I believe the sun iis shinning today(lol), let's play golf!
love&peace,
olde drunk
I believe the only absolute truth is that there ain't no absolute truth!
When I say "I know", all I am saying is that I accept the fact as my truth, filtered through my belief(s).
IMHO, once we understand the extent or power of our beliefs we will be better able to understand this reality.
My knowledge is a data base of all my experiences that I found important for my understanding of reality. all knowledge is subjective. even the flat-worlders had a reason to reject the information of a round Earth or that it revolved around the sun, etc...
while we, as a matter of social agreement, 'know' that the world is round etc..., use this belief to understand the other events in our world. What kind of information will be revealed in 1000 years to make our current understanding seem foolish?
I believe the sun iis shinning today(lol), let's play golf!
love&peace,
olde drunk
- #21
Royce
- 1,539
- 0
saviourmachine said:And you?
In two sentences you're using the words 'fact' and 'knowledge'. You're even stating that it is a fact that we are. So you also respond with what you believe. In my last post I summed up several things (but everyone should read it with large subjective brackets around it; does not everyone 'know'
Anyone?
IMHO, knowledge is knowing and understanding something and knowing it to be true, fact from personal experience verified by others or certain knowledge of its truth from within.
Belief is information gained from others such as classes, books etc without personal experience to verify it; but that the information is logical,reasonable and plausible with the other knowledge and beliefs that we individually have.
As an example, to get as basic as possible; I know that I am, from personal experience, this is knowledge. I believe you and others exist because I receive information that is not internally generated but outside of myself. I, therefore, believe that you and others exist but I only have your word for it to support that information and no personal experience to support it, thus no knowledge of it only belief.
- #22
Janitor
Science Advisor
- 1,109
- 1
Mahler765 said:
The Second Law applies to a closed system, i.e. a system that is not exchanging material or energy with its surroundings. Given the huge energy flux from the Sun, the Earth is far from being a closed system.
I just found this site:
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
which starts out thusly: "The use of thermodynamics in biology has a long history rich in confusion ... Sometimes people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is not the case; we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law... The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted..."
- #23
saviourmachine
- 96
- 0
Royce - definition: knowledge & belief
Relativity
Olde drunk, what you want to say is that there isn't a difference in how you would define the terms, isn't it? We don't know or believe anything for sure. You're repeating that everything is a believe in a kind of way. I think everyone knows that nowadays. So, let's go on and define terms while keeping that in mind.
Man! I can't believe people keep saying that. It's like saying "I don't know for sure that I exist", before saying against someone that you love her. Yes, I love to think about things, even the difference between 'to know' and 'to believe'.
Direct (personal) versus indirect (by thirds) obtained
Relativity
Olde drunk, what you want to say is that there isn't a difference in how you would define the terms, isn't it? We don't know or believe anything for sure. You're repeating that everything is a believe in a kind of way. I think everyone knows that nowadays. So, let's go on and define terms while keeping that in mind.
Man! I can't believe people keep saying that. It's like saying "I don't know for sure that I exist", before saying against someone that you love her.
Yes, I love to think about things, even the difference between 'to know' and 'to believe'.Direct (personal) versus indirect (by thirds) obtained
Hmm. Yes, that's an useful way to differ both terms IMHO. It kind of reflects the way I'm looking and valuing things, it reflects subjectivity.Royce said:
- #24
RingoKid
- 192
- 0
I think >> I feel >> I know >> I believe >> I'm right
a simple process that determines individual truth
a simple process that determines individual truth
- #25
string_theory
- 16
- 0
RingoKid said:
cool...
but I think you should interchange think and feel
- #26
RingoKid
- 192
- 0
I tend to think first then decide how i feel about it rather than feel first, then think about what I'm feeling...
...once I know what I'm feeling I can believe I am right
ya feel me ?
...once I know what I'm feeling I can believe I am right
ya feel me ?
- #27
RingoKid
- 192
- 0
so dolphin...
you think you feel you know so you believe your right...yeah ?
ok, I'm hooked but be warned I'm no physicist
rant on my good man, I'm all ears
you think you feel you know so you believe your right...yeah ?
ok, I'm hooked but be warned I'm no physicist
rant on my good man, I'm all ears
- #28
omin
- 187
- 1
Royce said:
Which of your five senses sense the spritual power?
- #29
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
He just said it was outside the 5 senses. Many people do have sensory manifestations during spiritual experiences. I know people who have had visual, tactile, and auditory manifestations, plus "a feeling of great warmth". I don't know if this is specifically a Catholic thing; all these individuals were Catholics.
- #30
Mahler765
- 18
- 0
Theory of Forms
Knowledge does have evidence just like a belief. However everything that we claim to "know" in this world is a belief because whatever has happened in the past is not required to happen in the future. Thus we must base our beliefs on what has happened in the past. The innate knowledge that you speak of has been used as proof of the existence of God. If a God( by definition perfect) does not exist, then how did humans conceive of the concept of perfection and imperfection? I think that you are confusing definitions. "Knowledge"(the perfect knowledge, absolute) is different from the contemporary definition of knowledge that we use every day. So the word knowledge that we use is only representing the idea of the perfect, absolute knowledge. That's how words/language in general operate.
Relativity of knowledge concept
'How' 'did' 'you' 'know' 'that' 'your' 'senses' 'are' 'false'? What are your conceptions about 'truth' and 'knowledge'? Do you see them totally discoupled from what we 'sense'? Why do you assume that they exist?
IMHO it's okay to stress the subjectivity of what we say and think, but we can't stick to it. We've to use them. Why don't we just register our subjectivity and go on with discovering, with reasoning?
Our senses are flawed because everyone has a different experience of the same object. I might say that the American flag is red, white, and blue. However, a person who is color blind might say the American flag is red, white, and green. So everyone has a different perspective; so whose perspective do we accept as "true"? I do not think that knowledge is totally separated from what we sense. I view our senses as physical extensions of your mind, used for gathering information. However, the information that is gathered could be lacking or in some cases distorted(color blindness) so an accurate representation of knowledge or truth can not be obtained. We merely use these representations because they are the only things that we have. Thus we must live by imperfections. How can you reason without having anything to base your reasoning on?
'Existence of evidence' versus 'character of the evidence'
The subject is "to believe versus to know". I'll suppose another difference than having 'evidence'. A believer has evidence in the form of personal experiences (or even relics) that others don't take as evidence.
One of the main differences to me seems to be in the continous versus occasional character of confirmation. To have a religious experience occurs not on a very regular basis (as far as I know). Scientific knowledge is about phenomena that are steady over time or at least repeatable.
First of all, could you clarify if you are using the word "phenomena" in the contemporary sense or in the sense of Kant's phenomena versus nomena? Scientific knowledge is based only on what has happened in the past, but there is nothing that requires what has happened in the past to keep on happening.
Definition of to know versus to believe
To know is (within of course the subjective framework we live in), having positive evidence for some case** and continously confirmation. To believe is having positive evidence for some case** and occasionally some confirmation.
What you are saying seems to simply be the difference between scientific theory and scientific law.
Believe
There are people that say that their believe isn't based on 'experience' but on 'innate knowledge'. That's exactly the opposite of your definition.
Again, everyone's experience is different. However, my definition did not rule out innate knowledge as innate knowledge is different from "Knowledge"(absolute). I would define innate knowledge as the awareness of the existence of absolute knowledge.
Paradox
Do you really think that this is a paradox? Can you explain me why?
First of all, that's just the official name of the argument. I didn't come up with it. I would say that it is a paradox because of what people actually say is happening and what is actually not happening.
Calling everything 'believe'
Hmmm, I'm thinking it over. I think there exist one ontological system, one reality. And that's what I would relate 'knowledge' with. That's just an idea but that idea can be right, isn't it? The fact that everything 'could be' just an idea, just believes, doesn't make an idea just an idea.
What?
Reality as a shadow (of the non-existent?)
I am definitely not a platonist. I think our ability for deductive reasoning [1] gives rise to our concept of 'infinity' and our averaging capabilities [2] to our concept of 'perfectness' and 'supernatural' phenomena (like a perfect circle).
Eternal truths
That presumes the concept 'existence', a non-existent object can be whatever it want to be. Besides, something with three angles and not three sides is even thinkable by humans. Even, if you want to say the 'proposition' "triangle = triangle" is 'always' 'true', what do you mean by that? Do propositions 'exist' when there is no mental world? And, back where we always start: 'what has truth to do with existence?'.
How can there be a non-existent object? And how can you say that a non-existent object can "be" anything if it's non-existent? I only stated that a triangle would always have three sides, if you can find an example where a triangle would not have three sides then I will be very interested. Truth has absolutely nothing to do with existence.
* "I know that for sure" would mean "I am firmly biased about it"
** Sometimes neglecting negative counter evidence, but that can happen to scientific as religieus issues as well.[/QUOTE]
saviourmachine said:
Knowledge does have evidence just like a belief. However everything that we claim to "know" in this world is a belief because whatever has happened in the past is not required to happen in the future. Thus we must base our beliefs on what has happened in the past. The innate knowledge that you speak of has been used as proof of the existence of God. If a God( by definition perfect) does not exist, then how did humans conceive of the concept of perfection and imperfection? I think that you are confusing definitions. "Knowledge"(the perfect knowledge, absolute) is different from the contemporary definition of knowledge that we use every day. So the word knowledge that we use is only representing the idea of the perfect, absolute knowledge. That's how words/language in general operate.
Relativity of knowledge concept
'How' 'did' 'you' 'know' 'that' 'your' 'senses' 'are' 'false'? What are your conceptions about 'truth' and 'knowledge'? Do you see them totally discoupled from what we 'sense'? Why do you assume that they exist?
IMHO it's okay to stress the subjectivity of what we say and think, but we can't stick to it. We've to use them. Why don't we just register our subjectivity and go on with discovering, with reasoning?
Our senses are flawed because everyone has a different experience of the same object. I might say that the American flag is red, white, and blue. However, a person who is color blind might say the American flag is red, white, and green. So everyone has a different perspective; so whose perspective do we accept as "true"? I do not think that knowledge is totally separated from what we sense. I view our senses as physical extensions of your mind, used for gathering information. However, the information that is gathered could be lacking or in some cases distorted(color blindness) so an accurate representation of knowledge or truth can not be obtained. We merely use these representations because they are the only things that we have. Thus we must live by imperfections. How can you reason without having anything to base your reasoning on?
'Existence of evidence' versus 'character of the evidence'
The subject is "to believe versus to know". I'll suppose another difference than having 'evidence'. A believer has evidence in the form of personal experiences (or even relics) that others don't take as evidence.
One of the main differences to me seems to be in the continous versus occasional character of confirmation. To have a religious experience occurs not on a very regular basis (as far as I know). Scientific knowledge is about phenomena that are steady over time or at least repeatable.
First of all, could you clarify if you are using the word "phenomena" in the contemporary sense or in the sense of Kant's phenomena versus nomena? Scientific knowledge is based only on what has happened in the past, but there is nothing that requires what has happened in the past to keep on happening.
Definition of to know versus to believe
To know is (within of course the subjective framework we live in), having positive evidence for some case** and continously confirmation. To believe is having positive evidence for some case** and occasionally some confirmation.
What you are saying seems to simply be the difference between scientific theory and scientific law.
Believe
There are people that say that their believe isn't based on 'experience' but on 'innate knowledge'. That's exactly the opposite of your definition.
Again, everyone's experience is different. However, my definition did not rule out innate knowledge as innate knowledge is different from "Knowledge"(absolute). I would define innate knowledge as the awareness of the existence of absolute knowledge.
Paradox
Do you really think that this is a paradox? Can you explain me why?
First of all, that's just the official name of the argument. I didn't come up with it. I would say that it is a paradox because of what people actually say is happening and what is actually not happening.
Calling everything 'believe'
Hmmm, I'm thinking it over. I think there exist one ontological system, one reality. And that's what I would relate 'knowledge' with. That's just an idea but that idea can be right, isn't it? The fact that everything 'could be' just an idea, just believes, doesn't make an idea just an idea.
What?
Reality as a shadow (of the non-existent?)
I am definitely not a platonist. I think our ability for deductive reasoning [1] gives rise to our concept of 'infinity' and our averaging capabilities [2] to our concept of 'perfectness' and 'supernatural' phenomena (like a perfect circle).
Eternal truths
That presumes the concept 'existence', a non-existent object can be whatever it want to be. Besides, something with three angles and not three sides is even thinkable by humans. Even, if you want to say the 'proposition' "triangle = triangle" is 'always' 'true', what do you mean by that? Do propositions 'exist' when there is no mental world? And, back where we always start: 'what has truth to do with existence?'.
How can there be a non-existent object? And how can you say that a non-existent object can "be" anything if it's non-existent? I only stated that a triangle would always have three sides, if you can find an example where a triangle would not have three sides then I will be very interested. Truth has absolutely nothing to do with existence.
* "I know that for sure" would mean "I am firmly biased about it"
** Sometimes neglecting negative counter evidence, but that can happen to scientific as religieus issues as well.[/QUOTE]
- #31
RingoKid
- 192
- 0
Mahler765 said:
cos there is only one of it, so it is only relative to itself. The non existent object is what differentiates what is real from what isn't and it doesn't exist in our frame of reference or even have a term of reference that does it justice...
you can't have one without the other...
...for something to be there has to be something that isn't
nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing
huh ??- #32
saviourmachine
- 96
- 0
Phenomena as opposed to noumena?
)? I don't think it's a useful concept. So phenomena, just in contemporary sense (an observable event).
Law and theory
Mahler's definition
) noumenon, unknowable, undescribable? It's possible to make things that abstract, that it becomes meaningless.
'Knowledge' = 'belief'?
To equate knowledge to belief would neglect the (beit subjective) value we assign to these different terms. In some way I can sympathise with the idea of a 'noumenal world', but in the sense that our 'physical' and 'mental world' are 'representations' of this world. I would like to define 'knowledge' in regard to the match with this (in several ways knowable) 'ontological world'.
Eternal truths
f the 'truth' don't 'exist', if the 'reality' nothing has to do with what is 'true', than you've an opposite world view.
I am interested.
Triangle example
What kind of example do you want? The Pinkel triangle? It depends how you define tri-angle. The letter V does have three angles and two sides, the letter M has three angles and 4 sides. It depends of your kind of timespace, Euclidian? Certainly, it doesn't seem like something 'eternal'. Or do you still want to say 'triangle = triangle'? Was you statement analytic or synthetic [Kant]? If it's analytic it's as "'truth = truth' = eternal truth". If it's synthetic than it has to do with 'reality' IMHO.
Do you think noumena (plural), unknowable, 'exist'? Why do you speak in plural about these ### (I don't know how to call themMahler765 said:
)? I don't think it's a useful concept. So phenomena, just in contemporary sense (an observable event).Law and theory
Yes, does it? So: "Newton's law" and "Einstein's theory", because I'm able to check up Newton's law as often as I want and can't continously observe evidence for Einstein's theory.
Mahler's definition
Yes, I didn't know that by your definition of knowledge you actually meant "absolute knowledge". Your definition:
- knowledge is an absolute belief
- belief is a statement supported by evidence
) noumenon, unknowable, undescribable? It's possible to make things that abstract, that it becomes meaningless. 'Knowledge' = 'belief'?
To equate knowledge to belief would neglect the (beit subjective) value we assign to these different terms. In some way I can sympathise with the idea of a 'noumenal world', but in the sense that our 'physical' and 'mental world' are 'representations' of this world. I would like to define 'knowledge' in regard to the match with this (in several ways knowable) 'ontological world'.
Eternal truths
To be and not to be. That's a question about 'existence'. You formulate the concept of an 'eternal' 'truth'. If you do so, you get involved with questions about the 'existence' of such truths. Is a 'mental truth' eternal? Does it 'exist'? Does the object you imagined 'exist' in your 'mental world'? Does an abstraction of 'mental concepts' 'exist'?
f the 'truth' don't 'exist', if the 'reality' nothing has to do with what is 'true', than you've an opposite world view.
I am interested. Triangle example
What kind of example do you want? The Pinkel triangle? It depends how you define tri-angle. The letter V does have three angles and two sides, the letter M has three angles and 4 sides. It depends of your kind of timespace, Euclidian? Certainly, it doesn't seem like something 'eternal'. Or do you still want to say 'triangle = triangle'? Was you statement analytic or synthetic [Kant]? If it's analytic it's as "'truth = truth' = eternal truth". If it's synthetic than it has to do with 'reality' IMHO.
- #33
Royce
- 1,539
- 0
Janitor said:
There is another part of thermodynamics that people seem to conveniently forget and ignore, organization. Any closed system will tend to become more disorganized, a lower state of organization, over time. It doesn't have to do with just thermal energy. This aspect of the Laws of Thermodynamics is why people such as myself say that life is one prime example that counters the trend of thermodynamics.
To go even further, at the very first instant of the Hot Big Bang, if such a thing ever actually happened, entropy was at its maximum as the temperature and pressure was the same everywhere thus organization was at its minimum. Since then things have become more and more organized decreasing organizational entropy while increasing thermal entropy. As clouds of gas formed eddies condensed into galaxies then; stars then stars with planets; then planets with life; then life with human beings which we think is the most highly organized form of life/mater to date.
While it may be that thermal entropy is increasing it is equally obvious that organizational entropy is decreasing; But since there is a tremendous temperature difference between the center of a star and that of intergalactic space, and that the human body, pound for pound radiates more thermal energy than the sun how can we say that entropy is increasing at all.
If the universe is a closed system and energy/matter cannot be destroyed or created isn't it really a matter of energy becoming more organized as temperature decreases. After all thermal energy has no place to go outside of the universe. Could it be that total entropy remains the same but changes form as does energy and matter remains the same but changes form?
While the universe may be a closed system, it is not a steam engine and trying to apply a "Law" formed about steam engine efficiency to the dynamics of the entire universe may be a bit of a stretch.
- #34
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
There are not different kinds of entropy. Thermal entropy is the same as organisational entropy, to use your terms. When the motion of the molecules becomes disorganized the entropy rises. There is only one equation for this: Boltzman's equation.
The situation of the Earth is that it receives only a tiny fraction of the Sun's high energy photons, but because each photon has the high energy it received at the Sun's photosphere, this corresponds to a high energy flux which tends to warm the Earth. The Earth then radiates at its characteristic temperature, and this produces not high energy visible range photons but low energy infrared photons, but there are a lot of them, and the outgoing energy flux balances the incoming.
Thus the Earth can be thought of as a transducer which changes an energy flow made of of a few high energy photons to an equivalent flow made up of many low energy ones. This is a staggering increase in entropy, and it goes on continuously.
Life on Earth's surface takes place immersed in this background entropy increase. Life does increase entropy but at a slower rate than the background radiation process; thus relative to its background, life generates a decrease in entropy.
The situation of the Earth is that it receives only a tiny fraction of the Sun's high energy photons, but because each photon has the high energy it received at the Sun's photosphere, this corresponds to a high energy flux which tends to warm the Earth. The Earth then radiates at its characteristic temperature, and this produces not high energy visible range photons but low energy infrared photons, but there are a lot of them, and the outgoing energy flux balances the incoming.
Thus the Earth can be thought of as a transducer which changes an energy flow made of of a few high energy photons to an equivalent flow made up of many low energy ones. This is a staggering increase in entropy, and it goes on continuously.
Life on Earth's surface takes place immersed in this background entropy increase. Life does increase entropy but at a slower rate than the background radiation process; thus relative to its background, life generates a decrease in entropy.
- #35
Janitor
Science Advisor
- 1,109
- 1
Thanks for the point and counterpoint, Royce and Selfadjoint. That is just the sort of discussion I was looking for on this topic.