Knowledge and belief are different. Belief is a conclusion that X is true. Knowledge is when the conclusion corresponds to actuality. A claim to know X does not mean one knows X. A claim to know X is a belief no matter what. It may or may not be knowledge.
"INTENT #1: A belief is a conclusion that something is true." WRONG. It could also be false. Again, your wording is leading me to disagree. Now you will come back and say I never said this. I am not going any farther in this charade, I stayed with you and applied scrutiny to your statements in the hope that you would start to apply more scrutiny to your own statements in the future. That was an error as you are unwilling to do so. Take care and good luck.
Obviously the conclusion, or the act of concluding something, isn't the same thing as evidence. A journey isn't the vehicle, but you need a logical vehicle to get to a conclusion, which means using evidence logically. Which isn't something you do as a solo act, usually there's a group decision. How is it that 'knowing' something is true, isn't the same as believing it's true? If you know something is probably true, do you also believe it's probably true? How come belief is different to knowledge? How is a conclusion different to a belief? Do you believe you can make conclusions, and do you also believe that conclusions require evidence? How is seeing something different to believing it exists?
You didn't - which is what I have issue with - in that your understanding of what constitutes knowledge is simplistic and flawed. I am telling you that for something to be considered knowledge it must be JUSTIFIED, as well as true. You continually ignore this requirement which is why you are getting nowhere as fast as a fridge on an ant. YES THEY DO!!! If you can't justify your claim of knowledge, then even if it is true in actuality that person does NOT actually have knowledge. They have a guess. Perhaps you do not understand the term "justify"? I do not mean that they have to go up to someone and explain why they think their belief is true. I mean that the belief held has to be rationally held. Guesses do not constitute knowledge - as one can not rationalise a guess. No I'm not - I am merely telling you that your understanding of what constitutes knowledge is simplistic and flawed. Yet this is the understanding that has been accepted - and continues to be accepted (admittedly with refinements far beyond your ken) - by more or less every philosopher from Plato onwards. And here you are, casually dropping the prerequisite for the belief to be justified, thus seemingly to brazenly demonstrate either your ignorance or your stupidity. I'm not sure which. :wallbang::wallbang:
What are you talking about? If I say something, I don't claim I never said it. All I am saying is that you are misinterpreting what I a saying. And a conclusion that something is false is irrelevant. It is a conclusion that something is true either way. That is how logic works.
Wrong. Everything that one concludes to be true regardles of how that person arrived at the conclusion must claim that the conclusion is justified. They must claim it is knowledge. However, the only quality that a belief must have in order to be knowledge is that it must be true in actuality. The individual determined it to be true in actuality. It is not necessarily true in actuality. Therefore, not necessarily knowledge.
The method one uses to arrive at a conclusion is irrelevant to whether they arrived at a conclusion. The conclusion can be that the earth is round. The conclusion can be that the moon is made out of cheese. How they arrived at the conclusion has no effect on anything else. 1. The conclusion is a belief. This just means that the observer concluded it to be true. 2. Any belief of an observer must be considered justified knowledge by the observer. This just means that anything that an observer concludes to be true must be considered as justified, as knowledge, as fact, etc. 3. Truth/knowledge is irrelevant of the obsrver's claim. This just means that, regardless of what conclusion of truth the observer arrives at, whether or not something is true or false remains completely independent of the observer. Thus, whether or not it is knowledge remains completely independent of the observer's claim of knowledge.
The method is extremely relevant, completely and utterly; the conclusion is made because of evidence and an applied method, as already noted. How did they conclude it to be 'true'? They observed something, is how. Any belief of a single observer is usually compared with other observers beliefs. The only observer who has the possibility otherwise, of "considered justified knowledge" is a single observer. Other observers might have other justifications for what they believe. So a single observer, or a group are the only ones who can consider they have justified belief, that they "know the facts". NO, an observer's knowledge is absolutely relevant to any claim they make. The knowledge of a single observer is because of that observer's observations and conclusions. NO, whether or not something is true or false remains completely dependent on an observer's observations and conclusions. NO, an observer's knowledge can be conveyed to a group, who then might know about that observer's observations and conclusions, but still have their own individual beliefs. The group might then make a group conclusion - which generally depends on how many in the group agree with a single individual's observations and conclusions. There are only single observers, and the group of single observers, in the frame here. All conclusions made individually are generally compared with observations of other individuals - the group is consulted, generally. Not that we don't make individual decisions, because we have to do that too. We tend to make them based on previous encounters with groups or other individuals - which is collective knowledge and experience. We don't have knowledge of the world all by ourselves, do we? We don't learn things in a vacuum.
The method and how they concluded something to be true is extremely irrelevant. The moethod does not have effect on whether or not the individual arrived at a conclusion. The method has no effect on whether or not the conclusion is true in actuality. Group has no relevance. Group is only a method. Truth does not depend on observer's conclusions. It is independent of the observer's conclusions. The observer must claim knowledge over all his beliefs. A claim of knowledge does not necessarily mean that the observer has knowledge. Whether or not the observer has knowledge is completely independent of the observer's claim of having knowledge. Everything you are claiming about groups and individuals are nothing more than methods of arriving at a belief. This has no relevance. Whether group or individual or whatever method, it doesn't matter. The observer still arrives at a conclusion.
HOW KNOWLEDGE WORKS Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BLUE: All matters that the observer has no conclusion about. YELLOW: The scope of all that the observer has concluded as true. (Scope of belief.) -Everything the observer has concluded as true is called, belief. -All conclusions about any matter are involuntary. -All conclusions about any matter are based on the observer's scope of belief. -Everything within the yellow must falll within either red or green. It cannot fall in both. It cannot fall in neither. -Whether knowledge or misconception, the observer must consider all yellow as knowledge. -Evidence is nothing more than material the observer uses to 'arrive at/prove to others' a "conclusion that something is true-(belief)". GREEN: Everything the observer has concluded as true that is also true in actuality. RED: Everything the observer has concluded as true that is not true in actuality. I've decided to add this in to elaborate on how knowledge works:
I decided to post this to make the rules clear: HOW KNOWLEDGE WORKS RULE# 1: Logic cannot be presumed. One must state (acknowledge) in advance that one is working within the parameters of logic. All of these rules operate within the parameters of logic. RULE#2: All statements are either true or false. A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. A statement cannot be neither true or false at the same time. RULE#3: Truth is independent of human perception/observation/acknowledgement. RULE#4: An observer can only have 2 states on all matters. Belief and inconclusion. Belief is a conclusion by an observer that a matter is true. If the observer concludes X is true, then the observer has belief that X is true. Inconclusion is a lack of conclusion by an observer regarding a matter. RULE#5: An observer cannot voluntarily choose a belief. An observer can only be involuntarily compelled to a belief. Justification (evidence/proof/verification/substatiation) is ANYTHING that compels the observer to belief. RULE#6: There are 2 forms of belief. Knowledge and Misconception. Knowledge is a belief that corresponds to actuality. Misconception is a belief that does not correspond to actuality. -If observer believes X is true. -If X is true. -Then observer has knowledge that X is true. -If observer believes X is true. -If X is not true. -Then observer has misconception that X is true. RULE#7: Belief must be either knowledge or misconception. Belief cannot be both knowledge and misconception. Belief cannot be neither knowledge or misconception. RULE#8: If an observer believes a matter to be true, then the observer must claim knowledge that the matter is true. The observer cannot claim misconception that the matter is true. Observer cannot claim knowledge or misconception regarding a matter that the observer considers inconclusive. RULE#9: Scope of belief is the body of all that the observer has concluded as true. Anything that the observer considers inconclusive falls outside of the observer’s scope of belief. Any matter than an observer concludes as true can only lie within the observer’s scope of belief. RULE#10: Realization occurs when an observer is compelled to switch from a belief to that belief’s antithesis. “I believed X is true” => “I now believe not X is true”. When an observer has a belief, there is no such thing as possibility/impossibility of misconception. Just as an observer may/may not be compelled to a conclusion, the observer may/may not be compelled to a conclusion in antithesis of their belief. DISCUSSION -The goal of each party in a discussion is to understand what the other party is communicating, and arrive at a conclusion regarding a matter. -Discussions can only be productive if they operate within the parameters of logic, and abide by the rules of knowledge. -Any party that approaches a discussion with intent to prove another party wrong is not acting with intent of understanding, but acting with intent of image. Such an approach is about discussion, but about debate and tactics used for debate for the sake of image.
What you're doing, by posting the 'rules'; is it about intent, or is it about image? Since you seem to be discussing it with yourself, at this juncture?
Indeed he is. The reason for this is that lix' has yet to understand how to engage others in discussion. He seeks merely to soliloquize. This will be tolerated. For awhile.
A pity he still fails to understand the philosophical nature of knowledge, and how it compares to belief.
I'm not discussing anything with myself. I'm posting the rules of how knowledge works. What is your issue?
No I am posting the rules of how knowledge works. These are not mine. I do not control time space or whatever. These are simply THE rules of how knowledge works. Any body that thinks there is a flaw can properly comment on whatever they want by posting what exactly is being said, and their idea about it without using debate tactics for image purpose. The intent here is to provide a clear explanation of how knowledge works. If your intend is image of being right, then get lost with your nonsensical comments.
