There was a time I believed I knew everything I needed to know. Now, however, I believe I didn’t know nearly as much as I once believed I knew. Matter of fact, I no longer believe in many things I once knew I believed were true. To be honest, though, I really would like to believe I know more now than what I believed to know then. Sadly, believe it or not, I don’t really know for sure.
1 Like
But isn’t it interesting how the less you know, the more amazing the world around you becomes?
3 Likes
Yeah, I believe I know what you’re saying. 
Good point.
No, not separate, but rather a different psychological state. Of course not everyone has the same exact perspective. Although I agree that “Knowledge and belief are directly realated”, imo, belief only arises after some degree acceptance of a purported fact, statement, idea. etc… In your example:
At this stage, she has no belief because she has not experienced the state of acceptance of your claim. Then, she acquires a state of acceptance by scrutinizing the available information via examination of the jacket. Now she may have a belief, but as a result of knowledge.
Ideally this acceptance should be a result of scrutinizing available evidence, including anecdotal. The degree of acceptance necessary for one to believe something is entirely individual and situation dependent. *
In the “real” world, there seem to be those who are capable of accepting without significant scrutiny. I still suspect that the same process of “fact acceptance” is taking place, although that is conjecture on my part.
I have come to think of it this way largely due to the phenomena of people I have met who have bizarrely unjustified beliefs, but are otherwise cognitively rational. This has predictably led to the question of “faulty Knowledge”. If one accepts purported “facts” with little or no scrutiny, their knowledge base can became flawed and faulty, producing beliefs which are wholly unjustified.
I agree that both are fluid and inextricably linked. I may be biased by my own perspective. I had beliefs created by “faulty knowledge” imposed on me by those I accepted as sources of facts and truth.
I later had beliefs created by “faulty knowledge” imposed on me by…myself, from acceptance of “facts” which were nothing of the sort.
*(For clarification, I view belief as acceptance with conviction and commitment.)
Yep, that rings familiar. 
1 Like
That made me smile. The longer I have lived, the more I realize how much I don’t know. 
1 Like
I think your going backwards. She must believe the information to be accurate before she can count it as knowledge. I keep going back to ‘Knowledge is justified true belief.’ A belief that can be justified with facts and evidence. So, she may have knowledge but it was based on observable facts that she believed to be true.
LOL… I think we can do this all day. We may have to agree to disagree. From what I have read, the most common philosophical definition of knowledge, (NOT THE ONLY ONE MOST CERTAINLY) is Justified true belief. That does not make it right… just common.
My “condition” gives me access to God. My type were once called “shaman” or “witch doctor”. We go under a different category nowadays - one which entails our housing in the insane asylum.
We’re no longer valuable to society at this stage. But here nor there - our “interaction” with God has long been the “normies” direct line to the big guy.
From the naked ascetics of India, to the bi-polar tragedy of the Christ, right up to the schizophrenic rantings of the Prophet - our kind has suffered at the hands of the Lord and often projected that onto society.
It’s never been an advantage to the normal people of society. But it’s a long standing tradition which we’ve suffered for.
It is not “pleasant” to be in direct contact with the Lord. He’s not particularly interested in humans, especially those who are so abnormal that they have pierced through the veil of “everyday” reality into his being.
Most humans go through life accepting that the little voice in their head is their conscience when it’s merely God whispering into their ear as a semblance of normality.
Perhaps… I am aware of and understand the JTB definition, and have no dispute concerning the definition of “true knowledge” as justified belief. However, I have issues with the concept of justification without knowledge first. Isn’t justification usually based on knowledge?
I lean hard toward a knowledge first notion of justification, although I acknowledge various non-knowledge based justification claims.
In the example we discussed, she was unable to believe without a justification of the propositional fact of the jacket. The knowledge gained by examination provided this through the practical knowledge of how to aqcquire propositional knowledge. When the jacket was shown to be the one, the justification to believe it was manifested,
So, if you like, I will agree that she had to believe that the observable facts were true. How did she determine they were true? through her knowledge of how to acquire propositional knowledge?
I accept a co-dependence of justified belief and knowledge. I am at present, unwilling to support the notion that all knowledge is dependent on belief first, without acknowledging the knowledge required for justification of belief.
After rereading the thread I should make a slight correction. When I stated “I think it to be an absurdity to assume that a belief can rise to the level of producing knowledge.” I should have been more specific and said “belief alone”. I am surrounded by people with unjustified beliefs so I get a bit bristly about beliefs having priority.
Thanks for making me think. I get none of that in my everyday life these days.
Thank you for your amazing insights Mr. Ratty.
1 Like
If you believe the justification. If you don’t believe it, you will not use it to justify your claim. In the diagram above there are ‘justified beliefs that are not knowledge.’ I would put most theists in that category. They justify everything but there is no actual knowledge behind their justified beliefs. They use the same facts we use in many of their arguments and then just go one fact further into Na-na land. (Romans crucified people. A guy named Jesus was crucified. He was magical and rose from the dead three days later.) I can give them the first two facts but that third one is a whopper. Still, they believe it as a fact, and it is not a justified fact by any stretch of the scientific imagination. It is a claim that needs facts to justify it. The other two claims are so mundane as to be ordinary. Who cares if a guy named Jesus was crucified by the Romans. Probably hundreds of Jesus were crucified by the romans. I have no problem accepting that possibility. The evidence is not great but fairly logical. Pretending the man had magical powers is a whole new issue.
I’ve got a meeting…
And what can/does one employ to determine factuality? Is it possible to make such a determination without knowledge?
Isn’t belief without knowledge the source of at least some of the “justified beliefs that are not knowledge”?
This sounds precisely like what I am espousing…”knowledge behind their justified beliefs” or perhaps “a priori knowledge” ?
Would you like a Möbius cookie?…or rather a
Möbius biscuit?
I know I can believe whatever is necessary to justify the knowledge of the beliefs I believe. After all, knowing you believe is half the battle.
@skriten Hey, I’d be delighted to have one of your Mobius cookies, if you don’t mind. Any chance you have a slice of Schrodinger pie to go with it? Oh, and a nice tall glass of Pavlov tea would go great with both. I’m drooling already just thinking about it.
1 Like
Sure, but I have to warn you…the metaphysical properties of the cookies are such that the totality of the experience of ingesting one entails an ambiguity as to where to begin…
.
.
Edit : Pavlov tea…why does that ring a bell?
1 Like
Okay….that was funny!
2 Likes
No worries. I’ll just start in the middle and work my way around… (looking at cookie from all angles)… Uhhh, could somebody show me where the middle is, please?
On a side note, has anybody ever considered what it would be like if we knew everything for certain? Do you believe it would be exciting, or would it be boring? Also, how would we actually KNOW we knew everything? Maybe we would just BELIEVE we knew everything?.. Or would we? Anyway, I believe the fact I’m asking this question is a great indicator that we obviously DON’T know everything… yet. Although, in all fairness, I know that believing we might one day know everything could be considered a silly belief. It’s a shame there is no way to know for sure… (resigned heavy sigh)…
1 Like
Yes. As illustrated in the diagram.
I thought we were sort-a bounding arong the same thing and just expressing it a bit differently.
I have a tendency to get pedantic and sometimes overly specific concerning distinctions without significant or operational differences, possibly for my own self-aggrandizement.
I appreciate having a conversation with an honest and knowledgeable interlocutor. 🫤
I’ll bite.
At least I would, but I’m a vegetarian. 🫢
‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.’
I’m sure you’ve heard this before.
Why do you disregard Hitchens razor, and make the claim anyway?