Well there are serious idiots running around claiming that knowledge is based on "good and sufficent factual evidence". This is absolutely absurd. Anywhere other than under logic, anything can work wonderfully. Any idiotic claim is profound wonderfulness. However, when working within the parameters of objective logic, this is total absurdity. Within the parameters of logic, truth does not depend on the perception of the observer. Perception depends on truth/actuality. Truth, more specifically, true/false, are quantities of actuality. They are the only quantities of actuality. CAN A PERSON CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE? No. Regardless of what an individual claims about what they know and believe, a belief is nothing more than an involuntary position on the actuality of something based on the individual's extent of understanding. 1. You claim that you are not sitting in front of your computer reading this, but what is your real belief? 2. You can claim you have a billion dollars under your mattress, but what is our real belief? DOES GREAT, WONDERFUL, FACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MEAN THAT A PERSON HAS KNOWLEDGE? Hell no. A claim/belief that X is true is a belief that X is true in actuality. This does not mean X is necessarily true in actuality. Any form of supporting evidence you produce that is supposedly good, substantial, factual, or fabulous, does not make X true in actuality. Furthermore, it does not mean you have knowledge that X is true. Regardless of any claim of definite knowledge, actual knowledge only occurs when your belief corresponds to actuality. If you believe X to be completely true, and X is not true, you do to not have knowledge. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE TO A CLAIM OF BELIEF AND A CLAIM OF KNOWLEDGE? There is a claim of belief and claim of knowledge. Then there is the state of belief and state of knowledge. 1. Anyone can claim anything under the sun. But for the sake of this section, we shall assume that a claim is an expression of an individual's state of being. 2. No matter what the claim, a person either believes X to be true, X to be false, or does not know. No matter what the claim a person makes or no matter the state of being, it is always a belief. 3. A state of knowledge is only when a belief corresponds to actuality.
I don't abide by most of "the above", and I'm still here (the world has not stopped objectively revolving on its speculative axis). How do I explain this?
Truth is something that is true or false in actuality. X is true. X is false. So something like the earth being round. The earth is round. True or false? The truth is what earth is in actuality terms of being round or not round.
Lix, "2. No matter what the claim, a person either believes X to be true, X to be false, or does not know. No matter what the claim a person makes or no matter the state of being, it is always a belief." No. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. You can believe something without knowing the answer. The people that I don't understand are those who know something is true but choose not to believe because they liked their belief better for whatever reason, even though there is empirical evidence to the contrary.
"the earth is round" depends on the subject's POV. If you happen to be in a cave, it means something different to if you happen to be a space-shuttle pilot. We see a round 'ocean' though - the curve in the horizon which gets more obvious the higher up you climb (a mountain, or an air column, in a balloon perhaps).
[babble snipped] Yes, to a greater or lesser extent. [babble snipped] Hell yes. [babble snipped] Yes. [babble snipped]
I think this issue is much more complicated than you present. 1) your examples are poor ones. they involve concrete objects, and, ironically, given what you say below about evidence, relatively easy fact-checking operations can attack or support those beliefs. 2) if you choose a belief like 'I am a great guy', I think it becomes much harder to say whether one can choose this or not. 3) there are also official beliefs and other beliefs that may or may not be the same. A person can think they love women, but when it comes down to a relationship this person distrusts them and ends up hitting them - because they are 'all bitches out to screw ________ over.' So we can never know if anyone has knowledge then? There may be knowledge, but since evidence is not the criterion used to determine if a belief is knowledge, we can never say 'this is knowledge' In fact we can't say 'this is not knowledge either.' We can only throw evidence at the beliefs but never know.
Truth exists independent of perception but knowledge depends on correct perception of evidence. StrangerInAStrangeLa I Am Therefore I Think (1,346 posts) Today, 07:35 PM #562 “ Originally Posted by lixluke This is incorrect. Not having evidence does not mean not having knowledge. Knowledge is not based on evidence. Knowledge is based on truth/fallacy. If X is true, and one believes X is true, one has knowledge that X is true whether one has evidence or not. The claim that "one has knowledge because one has 'good and sufficient' evidence" is illogical. There is no such thing as "good sufficient" evidence. If there was such an animal, perhaps you could present it. A belief may or not be substantiated in any form of fact. That is irrelevant to whether or not somebody's belief that X is true correspobds with X being true in actuality. All your caviling about definitions of epistemology has nothing to do with the epistemological questions presented. Is there there a God? Yes or no? ” Absolutely absurd. You seem to confuse truth & knowledge. Whatever is true, is true regardless of whether anyone knows, believes or guesses. Reminds me of the stupid saying "A stopped clock is right twice a day.". Actually, a stopped clock is never right any more than a painting of a clock is right twice a day. If it's stopped, it's not measuring & showing the time. If someone sees a stopped clock showing 11:20 but otherwise doesn't know what time it is & it just happens to be 11:20 at that moment, he still doesn't know what time it is. Whether a belief not based on evidence is true or not, it's not knowledge. Guesses are not knowledge, regardless of whether they happen to coincide with fact. It also reminds me of "psychics" who make 200 predictions of which 23 come true. Getting 23 out of 200 isn't being correct 23 times. It's making enough guesses that some will come true but they're still guesses & guesses are not knowledge. If you truly believe knowledge isn't based on evidence, there's no reason for anyone to participate in this with you. It's a useless futile frustrating farce. 1111
1. Of course you can know something. Knowledge is nothing more than a belief that corresponds to actuality. If somebody says "I know X is true", they are claiming to have knowledge that X is true in actuality. If X is true in actuality, they have actual knowledge X is true. The person doesn't have knowledge that X not true because of some sort of great evidence. Knowledge that X is true is because X is true in actuality. If X is false in actuality, the individual is incorrect in claiming that X is true. Wrong that is a contadictory statement. Your belief is a positon of the answer. Non knowing whether something is true or not is not a belief. It is simply not knowing. It is impossible for a person to be in the state of position about X being true or not. Yet claiming to not know.
It seemed like you had a problem with evidence being brought in to prove that a belief was knowledge. I understood that you thought one could know something. They have a belief and it is true. But how can they or we determine it is knowledge except via evidence? How can they know they are right to know? How does one determine that something is 'true in reality' in your system, if not via evidence?
Lixluke, "Wrong that is a contadictory statement. Your belief is a positon of the answer. Non knowing whether something is true or not is not a belief. It is simply not knowing. It is impossible for a person to be in the state of position about X being true or not. Yet claiming to not know." Oh forget it. This is very simple and yet you still don't get it. Your sentence didn't even make sense, it's just babbling. Stranger said, "If you truly believe knowledge isn't based on evidence, there's no reason for anyone to participate in this with you. It's a useless futile frustrating farce." Exactly.
"How does one determine that something is 'true in reality' in your system, if not via evidence?" Excellent question Simon and to the point which is that if he doesn't like the fact that there may be proof of something he wants to call it a belief as if it were the same thing. That is what he is trying to prove (irony), by trying to claim they (knowledge and belief)are the same he can say nothing is proveable. Such as Dinosaurs once roamed the earth or the Earth is round. They are only beliefs. Am I right Lix ?
Evidence is material used for obtaining/supporting to a conclusion. Everything that in one's understanding is belief. Any conclusion one arrives to based on any form of evidence is a belief. I have come to the conclusion that my computer is in front of me. It is true that my computer is in front of me. It is a fact that my computer is in front of me. My computer is definitely in front of me. I know my computer is in front of me. <- All of these statements are my belief that - to the extent of my understanding, it is true in actuality that my computer is in front of me. If I come to a definite conclusion about anything based on any form of evidence somebody presents to me, it is still a belief. I claim based on all the given proof and evidence that X is true. I know for a fact that X is true. It is a belief either way that X is true in actuality. And it is a claim that I have actual knowledge that X is true because I believe X to be true as all the evidence allows me to come to this conclusion. Any conclusion I arrive to is based on the extent of my understanding. Any time somebody makes a claim of knowledge, belief, or whatever you want to call it, they do not have to use the phrase "to my knowledge" "as far as I know" "to my understanding" They all mean the same thing. The phrases need not be mentioned because it is understood that anybody, having any state of belief, or making any claim of fact, based on any form of evidence -> is always within the parameters of one's own understanding. Anytime, somebodt says: "in my opinion" I believe" It a claim based on that individual's extent of understanding. I can say I know X is true for a fact. I can say I believe X is true for a fact. It is the same thing. Everything I claim to know is what I invoumtaryily believe.
People can choose what to believe (i.e. accept as true). Many people choose to believe things that make them feel good. So if some assertion is attractive / satisfying then it "must be true". A person whom posesses evidence posesses knowledge. Part of your analysis appears to be based confused definitions so I'll lay them out: Truth - When an idea or notion in the human mind corresponds to actual reality. Evidence - A demonstration of that correspondence. This means that a person whom posesses evidence posesses a demonstration of the correspondence between what's in their mind and actual reality. That is objective knowledge. I agree with a good chunk of this but I disagree with the state of belief. I think this may be more accurate: 1) A person believes 'X' is true. 2) A person believes 'X' might be true. 3) A person believes 'X' is false. 4) A person believes 'X' might be false. 5) A person believes there is insufficient information for or against 'X'.
Wrong. A person who possesses a belief that corresponds to truth possesses knowledge. Evidence is irrelevant to possession of knowledge. Knowledge is not based on evidence. It's based on truth. Most people's understanding of the term "belief" is linguistic as opposed to an actual involuntary state. A belief is really an involuntary position about something that is within the parameters of the believer's extent of understanding. Everything one knows to be true is one's belief. The term "knowledge" can be used in varying connotations. But "Actual Knowledge" of something occurs only when somebody's belief about something is true in actuality. Evidence is not proof of knowledge it is material used to support a conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true. It is only knowledge if the conclusion is true.
HOW EVIDENCE WORKS: Somebody comes to the conclusion that something is true. Somebody uses proof observation or evidence to prove it to be true. "There is a bear chasing me. I know for a fact because I can see him, and he will eat me if I stop running." Whatever the evidence may be, the individual believes the bear is chasing him. He claims to know the bear is chasing him in actuality based on whatever evidence. Thus, given the evidence, it can easily be concluded by anybody that it is true the bear is chaisng him. No matter what, it is a belief that it is true in actuality that he is being chased by the bear. Any conclusion of truth anybody arrives at based on any form of evidence is that person's belief that the conclusion is true in actuality. Then, the person, states "I know for a fact that the bear is chasing me". "I have knowledge that the bear is definitely chasing me". There is no reason for anybody to believe in this case that the bear is not chaisng the individual. Thus, everybody can come to the conclusion that the bear is definitely chasing him. Based on all the evidence, everybody has concluded that they have arrived at definite knowledge.
