When one looks at oneself and asks two questions.

What do I believe?

and

What do I know?

I did this many years ago and even now try to keep this question constantly in mind.

When you ask these two questions and dig deep, you will find that what you believe is much and what you actually know is very very little.

Just about all argument so far is based on belief, either arrived at by the individual or gained from someone else.

We tend to think that belief may lead us to knowledge but invariably it tends to lead us to just more belief.

Like perpetual gambling we take on board belief in the hope of finding knowledge. But if you look closely you'll find that it is the belief that actually (in most cases) that stops the achievement of knowledge. By creating preconceptions that are sometimes very difficult to remove. Thus the pursuit of true knowledge is made that much more difficult.

For instance I could use the famous works of Albert Einstien as an example.

Science holds to the belief that his work is the way of true knowledge about the universe. And whilst maybe this is in a lot of ways correct it may also be our greatest obstacle.

Einstien knew his theories had probems and yet we believe so strongly that we are prepared to over look them and even try to justify them with other beliefs.

I use the motto as a rule of learning.

"True knowledge is not a question of belief"

As I find belief an easy way to achieve a state of delusion.
(delusion being a falsehood)

When Wesmorris stated:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't buy into it nor do I think it impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



He was and is stating that he takes a position of unqualified unknowingness and I think states also that when he does know he will know.

This is a position of not allowing belief to distort his perception of reality and this is I feel is a wise path to tread.

We are so superstitious as a race that we love to remove our fear of the unknown by constructing a security blanket called belief.

It takes enormous courage to stand up and steady and say in the face of every one elses strong beliefs " I don't know and I will stay ignorant until I do know"

This takes great courage and for me deserves respect.

So I give the challenge:

What do you believe ?
and
What do you know?

How open minded are you?

If you want to be pedantic academic, you can claim that there is only belief. Even mathematical theorems are based on faith in the truth of some axioms and a belief that certain laws of logic are valid.

If you want to be a reasonable person, you recognize that belief is faith based like religious concepts, and you can claim to know a lot. Belief in a statement implies acceptance of that statement as true in the absence of any supporting evidence and in the absence of any reason to accept it.

So make a list of those concepts or statements for which you have supporting evidence and/or for which you have some reason to accept as true. Make another list of those statements based on neither supporting evidence nor reasonable arguments. The items in the second list that you accept as true are beliefs. The items in the first list are knowledge.

The above seems simple, but unfortunately it requires some education and some critical judgment facilities to make it effective. It always amazes me to discover the belief systems of many intelligent people with a fair to excellent education. Over 50% believe that we have been visited by extra terrestrials. Perhaps 25% or more believe in alien abductions. About 50% or more believe in one or more of the following[b]: ESP, OBE, remote viewing, the Bermuda Triangle, channeling, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, et cetera. Some people are so open minded that some of their brains drain out and get replaced by rubbish.

I would've expected some kind of a response...but OK.

oh and Chips, thats not the reason I suggested it. 'Emanations' describes the concept of ultimate truths, beliefs, and that sort of thing. Its difficult to describe to a beginner.

Dinasaur,

I tend to take it a little more simply.
For example,

I "believe" I can make a telephone call to London on the assumption that all things being equal ( From Melbourne Australia)

I make the Call and I get connected. I "know" I am connected. I talk to my friend and I know I am talking to my friend. I hang up and I know that I have hung up. I know that I have made this call. It is not a belief as such.

How I made the call, the belief is in the movement of electrons (??)
Do we know how the call is made? We know that we use wires and optic fibres, we know that we have to enter a code and we know that a computer does most of the work.
But we can only believe in what actually happens within the wires.

We know some of the effects of electricity but we only believe in what it is.

So the distinction between belief and knowledge to me is greater than just being able to prove in theory.

Will a theory ever become true knowledge?
To say yes or no would be to express a belief. ( nothing wrong in doing this I might add)

I think Xerxes kind of went off on a tangent there through perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding of Dinosaur's "If you want to be a reasonable person, you recognize that belief is faith based like religious concepts, and you can claim to know a lot." I'm not sure, were you implying an exclusive "and" there Dinosaur?

Me thinks the terminology describing this dichotomy you seek to explore here Quantum, might be better phrased so as to avoid some confusion and maybe get closer to a utilitarian perspective, maybe.

Belief can be based on knowledge or from coercion. In this sense I see two different kinds of faith, one based in knowledge and one that stems from a desire to belong, peer pressure, tacit condescension or just plain wanting to align with power. Is there a more simple way to describe what I'm getting at here? Seems to me that belief vs. knowledge implies a distinction that I believe Dinosaur was approaching as I too understand the implication.

Maybe some better terms would be heuristics vs. science. Maybe just plain old religion vs. science though I hold out that someday science can bring us to concepts that are religious in nature. What are better terms?

I agree with you Mr Chips. Dinasaur is cetainly stating a more reasonable perspective and that I am may be being a bit absolutist is my objectives.

And as Dinasaur quite rightly stated
If you want to be pedantic academic, you can claim that there is only belief.

I think that possibly the reason I tend to take this position is that I find beliefs tend to overcomplicate life and lead to endless speculation thus a discursive mind. ( one that can't settle or rest properly)

When one recognises that you spend "90%" of your thinking time dealing with beliefs, forgetting that they are just that , beliefs, then one can shift ones attention more towards what we know instead. And of course there isn't much to think about, because what we know is self evident. Therefore we can relax our speculations a little and find a greater inner peace. It's just that we often forget about the quality of our knowledge and it's truth, thus leading us to think and act in error.

A lot of my posts in the physics section have proved this point to me over and over again.
Incorrect assumption = Incorrect belief.

And it is amazing when you find that your whole knowledge base is flawed with long held beliefs that you take for knowledge by mistake.



Please excuse these ramblings. I haven't spent hours trying to compose this post.

Xerxes: "Its difficult to describe to a beginner."

Well, it's dificult to converse with an afterthought before-thought editor, oh well.

"Emanations", you mean kind of like swamp gas? I really don't know but that maybe you are using some of the plentiful Christian based doublespeak.

I would be heartened to meet a true Christian apologist but they go so far as to define that in ways that mean other than first interpretation, as one would surmise after studying the dictionary meaning of the two words, basically "I'm sorry I ascribed to Christianity and am sorry for the actions I took while under the influence of the idolatry, the corporate and military fodder serving ruse, etc."

Oh well, if it can't be defended, obfuscate.

Of course chock it all up to my being a beginner. How about if I just turn around and go in the other direction?

Well, it's dificult to converse with an afterthought before-thought editor, oh well.

What?

"Emanations", you mean kind of like swamp gas? I really don't know but that maybe you are using some of the plentiful Christian based doublespeak.

-I'm not christian.
-'Emanations' is far from a christian idea.
-"Emanations" like what? I bet you did not understand the meaning of 'domain' and 'range' and 'derivative' in grade 2, but that does not make those concepts any more glib.

Of course chock it all up to my being a beginner. How about if I just turn around and go in the other direction?

I don't know where you get your ideas from. I don't have any feelings, good or bad to QQ or yourself. As I said, you have to read about it and give it a chance before you understand its relevance. That takes a while unless you have an interest. As in understanding the relevance and beauty of Calculus before chocking it up as the work of some pretensed physicists. I was not directing any of this at you, actually QQ, to answer his original question. I'm not 100% sure as to why he did not respond, but looking back, I was expecting some interest. Its much more relevant than the basic crap, but to a second year student of philosophy(esp this branch), like calculus to math, its not something a person can immediately appreciate.

Okay dokey. Sorry for the misunderstanding though some still exists.

My answer to your "What?" is basically that you had edited out some posts you made and answered later messages with your editing, kind of convoluted and strange but then, maybe it just in keeping with my idea that the philosopher is not concerned about "wisdom" but rather "wisdoms" which can involve a bit of a desire to avoid any real communication as that can lead to "wisdom" singular. I find it interesting that you are still talking at this idea of Emanations rather than about it which does not seem to be an attempt to inform but rather to impress your lofty understanding and put down the worthiness of the understanding of others

Xerxes: "As I said, you have to read about it and give it a chance before you understand its relevance."

Well, that goes virtually without sayng for virtually anything. I have found such statements to be common when a true believer speaks of their "beliefs" and my most often experienced scenario with such "you'll believe it when you know it" apparent attitude is with those who profess Christianity though I've seen it with Buddhism also. Must admit I've seen it with the strong adherent of philosophy too though again I reiterate, seemed they were more concerned in being lost and having others be lost in gobble-dee-gook than in helping people find valid and valuable understanding.

Hey, we just be jaberwocking here. No harm and ill feelings on this end but I do like to flesh things out a bit. Wouldn't mind coming to a better understanding of what you are talking about but so far, as I shared, you've talked at it and not about it. Guess my interest is not piqued enough to go and see if I can find out more on my own and perhaps you are not that interested in seeing if you can get me fired up about it.

I do enjoy lookin' at stuff about string theory though as you had originally posted an URL to such.

Peace.

bah

Another good one
<a href"http://www.luminary.us/russell/theory_knowledge.html">on belief and knowledge</a>

A bit like saying "everything has a truth, and there is a truth to everything"

I happen to agree. The only thing we get a little confused about is context and perspective.

Belief is based on intuition. Knowledge is based on passive thinking.