What Does It Mean To "Know"?

[Yahweh]

From Life is Just an Illusion:
Ratman writes

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I believe you are wrong.

Iacchus responds

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how do you know?

At what point is a "belief" rightfully called "knowledge"?

It seems to me the most pop-culture definition of "knowledge" seems to be "anything which is held to be true", but that kind of definition easily lends to the problem of two people simultaneously "knowing" mutually contradictory beliefs.

 

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Agent Kay
1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.

However, in the case of our Master Equivocater Iacchus, the phrase "But how do you know?" isnt a request for further information, but rather a statement akin to "You are right, you have found me out, exposed my nonsense, but I will never, never, never, never in a million zillion years admit it. 'Cause I don't want to be pinned down, and I can still at least pretend to be smart."

 

[gentlehorse]

At what point is a "belief" rightfully called "knowledge"?

It seems to me the most pop-culture definition of "knowledge" seems to be "anything which is held to be true", but that kind of definition easily lends to the problem of two people simultaneously "knowing" mutually contradictory beliefs.

I don't usually find myself saying that I know this, that, or the other thing. This is probably a reflection of the fact that there is very little that I know. I know that I exist. Everything else is probabilistic. Probably. Who knows?

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

At what point is a "belief" rightfully called "knowledge"?

Well, most accounts include as a bare minimum that the belief by both justified and true (whatever that ends up meaning).

I think the oddity present in the example you posted comes with the faintly odd tendency of people talking a religious way to use 'knowledge' to mean 'certainty'. Now, certainly in most cases of knowledge we are certain of whatever it is we know - but this isn't generally taken to mean that anything we are certain of counts as knowledge. That leads inexorably to contradictions (and more likely, to a kind of odd inclusive and completely incoherent 'there are many truths' sort of relativism).

In Iacchus' case, though, he seems to just be asking, in line with the above comment, 'ah, but are you reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally certain?'. This tactic generally works because reasonable people almost always answer "Well, not reallyreallyreallyreallyreally certain, no." At this point the person asking the question can easily snap back with "well, I'm reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally certain that (I can live on light/My dog is telling me to smite hookers/the moon is following me around and spying on me/etc)."

In a delusionary fantasy state, this looks like a convincing rebuttle(or something convincing at any rate), but really it's just an odd rhetorical ploy.

 

[toddjh]

I've never heard a definition of "knowledge" that differs from "belief" by more than just degree.

Jeremy

 

[gentlehorse]

I've never heard a definition of "knowledge" that differs from "belief" by more than just degree.

Jeremy

Justifiabilty comes into play somehow or another, wot?

 

[toddjh]

Justifiabilty comes into play somehow or another, wot?

Does it? I've heard plenty of people say they "know" things that are unverifiable ("I know there's a God," for example). I haven't seen anything to convince me that "know" means something different from "believe very strongly."

Jeremy

 

[Polux]

There are different kind of beliefs. If knowledge is to be considered a belief, it is the reasonable and well founded one. Beliefs based on experience are reasonable, more so if testing is involved.
Most of us, when talking about beliefs, are referring to the irrational / blind / unfounded ones. The difference in degree of probability is significant enough as to separate knowledge from 'mere' belief.

 

[Dymanic]

I think there is often a strongly implied element of choice associated with the word 'believe'. In the phrase: "I believe in gun control", I believe means: "I have chosen to adopt this stance".

So when a person says: "I believe in God", there is something unspoken; this belief has not been thrust upon him, he has chosen -- of his own free will -- to believe. This is important, because he expects to recieve credit for making the proper choice among multiple existing alternatives.

If multiple alternatives do not exist, the discussion is unlikely to take place at all; you never hear anyone say: "I believe that the sun exists", or: "I know that the sun exists. And talking about what one chooses to know would be interpreted as rather disingenuous.

 

[jimmygun]

Knowledge can be equated with predictability. Unless something becomes predictable it cannot be considered knowledge. The sun will come up tomorrow, it is predictable and it is knowledge. The search for predictability is called science. The search for unpredictability is called religion and so far has been shown to be wrong in a most predictable fashion.

 

[Tricky]

To a good skeptic, it is one of those limits, like infinity, which you can approach, but never completely reach.

To a non-skeptic, it just means "I believe it strongly".

 

[Iacchus]

At what point is a "belief" rightfully called "knowledge"?

So, how do you separate a fact, from the knowledge of that fact? You see knowledge is not the fact but, the belief in that fact. Much like the difference between the apple which sits on the table, and the observance of that apple, from which we derive knowledge and, the belief thereof.

To know something however, requires first-hand experience and the intimate knowledge of that something. For example, taking a bite out of the apple, as opposed to reading about it in a book.

 

[Ratman_tf]

I believe I'll have a beer. I know it will quench my thirst.

 

[Iacchus]

However, in the case of our Master Equivocater Iacchus, the phrase "But how do you know?" isnt a request for further information, but rather a statement akin to "You are right, you have found me out, exposed my nonsense, but I will never, never, never, never in a million zillion years admit it. 'Cause I don't want to be pinned down, and I can still at least pretend to be smart."

I am not God. I am not responsible for life as it exists on this planet. Therefore you will never be able to pin me (God) down.

 

[Iacchus]

Does it? I've heard plenty of people say they "know" things that are unverifiable ("I know there's a God," for example). I haven't seen anything to convince me that "know" means something different from "believe very strongly."

Jeremy

Hey, that's only because you don't know.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Heck, I thought this was going to be about sex in the Bible..


Never mind...

 

[Gestahl]

At what point is a "belief" rightfully called "knowledge"?

It seems to me the most pop-culture definition of "knowledge" seems to be "anything which is held to be true", but that kind of definition easily lends to the problem of two people simultaneously "knowing" mutually contradictory beliefs.

I can "know something" that is completely false. Scientists "knew" that gravity was an inverse square law before Einstein. Schizophrenic people "know" that people talk to them in their head. I would say knowledge is that which, when you perceive reality, you repeatedly observe.

Believe is to hold as true without evidence, or even despite evidence against something. (I believe Jesus Christ was the son of God).

Think is to hold as true with inconclusive, but convincing evidence. (I think that global warming is a real problem, and we should reduce CO2 emissions).

Know is to hold as true with evidence that you see no way of refuting or finding counter-examples to. I.e. gravity is always attractive (which is actually now under question). However, there is nothing that says tommorow some counter-example may come along we didn't think of. In short, knowledge is not a representation of truth at all, only truth so far as we have seen. (I know that the sky, barring pollutants or clouds, is blue, because I see it everyday, and it has never been a different color, and I cannot see a reason for this to change).


At least, that is what I think a skeptic should consider as the definition of those terms if s/he is being honest.

The difference in what people "know" is the difference in the evidence, and what people consider un-refutable. Personal experience is a big part of this, since very few people are willing to do population studies or look at society as a whole, just their little corner, with their assumptions.

 

[phildonnia]

Smullyan's argument about belief:

Suppose that everything you believe is true. Now a person comes up to you and says "You will never believe that this sentence is true". You can't believe it, because that would make it false, and everything you believe is true. Thus, you do not believe it, and so it is true.

You could reason (as we have just done) that it was true, but only if you accepted as given that everything you believe is true. This would lead to contradiction, meaning that:

if you believe that everything you believe is true, then at least one thing you believe is false.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

But, if you don't believe it and it is true that doesn't necessarily cause a problem. After all, the starting point was that everything you believe is true -- not that everything that is true, you believe. It's perfectly plausible that there could be truths you didn't believe (just not truths who's negations you believe).

You'd just have to be an agnostic about that phrase.

 

[Kopji]

An example in an old book (Conjectures & Refutations) by Karl Popper gives an example I enjoyed. Since I can't find the exact spot right now, please forgive me for probably badly paraphrasing...

Suppose we are climbing a mountain peak. We go higher up the slopes and it becomes foggy. We reach what we think is peak, but how can we know? So we check around for other slopes, we measure the altitude, we ask other climbers. Since we cannot ever see clearly, we test various ideas (hypotheses) that seem 'true' and try to disprove them. We gradually come to a working conclusion that we have or have not reached the peak.

The problem in religion, (using this example), is that faith cannot be disproved. There is always a way to believe, 'with God all things are possible'.

Science simply says that what is 'true' has limits that can be described. A fact is something that helps describe and even predict the 'peak' we are climbing. There is no such thing as a 'fact' in religion that serves this same purpose.