knowledge vs. belief

[louis]

A quick point, though - wouldn't you also suggest that imagination is the foundation of science? After all, were people like Einstein and Boyle not imaginative in their thinking - simply in a particularly way?

From Louis....
Interesting point .
Before I retired, my job was to make images of things
that did not yet exist.
I would work with an research/design engineer -listen
to his ideas and read his notes - until we both came up
with a picture of a item before it was constructed.
Eventualy, of course, it would be contructed and I would
have a physical ( real ) item to compare with my picture.
But ... just WHEN did that item become "real"?
As an idea in the engineer's mind ?
As an idea in MY mind as I made the image ?
Or not until it was actually constructed ?

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Yet are good and evil are entirely human cultural constructs? Eliminate mankind and you still have a natural world that kills indiscriminantly.

Uh. Yes, good and evil are entirely human cultural contructs. IMO.

Nature is my darling, because She is the only darling, but I also know that She is sharp of tooth and bloody of claw.

I would assert that this is not "evil". And, really, the natural world doesn't kill "indiscriminately"; think of how populations are controlled without human interference - how a greater food supply stimulates the bearing of more offspring...how ovepopulation of one species results in a population surge in the predators of that species.

There is no *intent to harm* in any of this, which is what evil is, IMO. There is no joy in causing suffering.

There is just the wheel, turning this way and then that, to keep things in balance.

[thotzRthingz]

And, really, the natural world doesn't kill "indiscriminately"

but then what of the observation that asteroids, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, and tornadoes are some of nature's (not mankind's) most violent killers? are these not all natural events which kill indiscriminately, even to the point of extinction of entire species?

peace

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by thotzRthingz

but then what of the observation that asteroids, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, and tornadoes are some of nature's (not mankind's) most violent killers? are these not all natural events which kill indiscriminately, even to the point of extinction of entire species?

peace

I guess what I'm having an issue with here is the word "indiscriminately". Are these things "haphazard" or "random"? Earthquakes don't happen everywhere. Tsunamis don't happen everywhere. These are not random events.

When we say that natural occurances like earthquakes or cometary impacts or other "natural disasters" are indiscriminate, it's because we don't understand the forces that cause them and cannot predict their occurance, that's all.

I'm not saying that (from our perspective) these things cannot cause tragic (to us) loss of life, and misery to other life forms. They do.

But, again, what is "evil" about that? Is there intent to cause harm?

[thotzRthingz]

Käthe: When we say that natural occurances like earthquakes or cometary impacts or other "natural disasters" are indiscriminate, it's because we don't understand the forces that cause them and cannot predict their occurance, that's all.

is it not possible that is also true of man's inhumanity to man? isn't it possible that there's something far deeper and more purposeful going on, than we are presently willing to accept?

despite our judging actions or events as being discriminate, indiscriminate, good, or evil... i think every action/event has purpose, although it may take a lifetime (or several) for that purpose to become clear to us?

i'm not necessarily taking issue with what you've said. just trying to examine it in a broader arena than most typically are willing to consider as being possible.

peace

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by louis

]



This I know as a fact; it is God's message to me. Will anyone believe it?

From Louis...

Exactly what I am trying to pin down !
How do you define "fact" ? Do you mean "real" because
YOU had direct, personal experience of it ? Do you mean
it must BE real because it FEELS real to YOU ?
( That would not be my definition of "real" - that would
be "subjective" - maybe only imaginary ).
If it is FACT, then it does not need to be "believed" -
it can be DEMONSTRATED. ( That's my definition of
fact ) Others can KNOW it by experiencing it themselves.
Maybe not in the way YOU experienced it, but in
their OWN way.

This right here is at the core of all discussions on religion (or science). I find it extremely interesting. What knowledge can all people agree to? What is a "fact"?

IMHO, there are NO facts.

In a normal discussion, we make a claim (express a belief), which we substantiate with "facts". (Of course, there are argumentations where the speaker doesn't give supporting facts. "My belief is so logical and selfevident that it can only be refuted by non-logical persons. In that case, their arguments are not valid.")

Following the argumentation above: A fact is indeed a fact if it can be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated, it is a belief. I.e., the fact can be put to a test, and if the fact "passes" the test, the fact is now "proven". But, the test must be such that all people - i.e. not only the one that designed the test - can agree to that it is "suitable" for proving or disproving the belief!

Ergo, the disagreement is moved from whether or not the BELIEF is true to whether or not the FACT is true.

Example:
Claim: There is a God!
Fact/Proof: The Holy Bible says so.


In conclusion: There are no "facts". Just beliefs supported by other beliefs. (And that's the fact Jack! :-)

What do you guys think?

Regards,
DIKL

[Thomas]

Trouble is... anything that is NOT knowledge ( such as
belief ) must be LESS than knowledge... and have LESS VALUE than knowledge.

Only when knowledge has a marketable value and a trading commodity - which indeed is the way the world is heading. As William James said, "Philosophy bakes no bread".

Put it this way:

Trouble is ... anyone who is NOT working ... must be worth LESS than someone who IS ... and effectively the PERSON has no intrinsic value, but is justified only by the WORK done.

Has anyone studied cognitive theory?

To assume that 'belief' is founded on nothing but imagination and fantasy, that it lacks logic and requires the suspension of reason, is a fallacious argument, which signifies a lack in itself of clear thought processes.

Too often a philosophical question gets swamped in emotive responses.

Thomas

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by Thomas

To assume that 'belief' is founded on nothing but imagination and fantasy, that it lacks logic and requires the suspension of reason, is a fallacious argument, which signifies a lack in itself of clear thought processes.

Too often a philosophical question gets swamped in emotive responses.
Thomas

Now, I could rewrite the above to something more provocative:
To assume that 'belief' has only properties A and B, lacks property C and requires property D is wrong. Therefore the assumption signifies a lack ... of clear thought.

This brings us into the "emotive responses". Emotive means "appealing to one's emotions". I believe all communication between human beings elicit some emotional response. I am assuming that is a basic human trait. In that case all questions, including philosophical ones, are "swamped" in emotive responses. Is that good, bad or ...?

In this case, the emotion that Thomas' reply arouses in me is that it makes me wonder if he is angry at one of the previous posters.

I for one am not claiming that a "belief" is worth less than "knowledge". Rather, I think that even "knowledge" itself is based on beliefs. (See my previous post.)

Take care,
DIKL

[Thomas]

In conclusion: There are no "facts". Just beliefs supported by other beliefs.

I'm not with you on this one, DIKL. What about the fruits of empirical science? Is the boiling point or freezing point of water a fact, or a belief?

So we have verifiable data: gravity, cause and effect, etc.

From here we extrapolate what is, or might be possible. We have a number of ideas, and we measure these ideas against the data and discard those that suggest they are wrong, and examine those we believe to be the case - this is science at work - and eventually (hopefully) arrive at a conclusion, a proof, and thereby, a fact.

Now the scientist might work on a belief, or even a hope, that there are black holes, or that an aircraft can break the sound barrier - but a good scientist does not let his emotions or his beliefs cloud his reasoning.

A notable exception was the cold fusion fiasco which suggests that when the scientists could not make it work, they began to fabricate the evidence that it did. There have been other cases.

(There have been cases of the exact opposite, for example when the phonograph was demonstrated to scientists who believed that everything that can be discovered had been discovered, as the phonograph had not been already discovered, it was obviously a trick. The inventor was accused of throwing his voice, and all manner of chicanery!)

Then there are 'theories' which cannot be demonstrated, like evolution, but can be accepted as reliable. Like e=mc2, or Pythogoras' Theorem.

Then we can launch into Quantum theory, and here we are on the threshold in which scientists talk about theories as beliefs, but they are careful to distinguish between such beliefs, and such facts.

+++

In the Doctrine of Catholicism it is axiomatic that the datum of Revelation is a matter of Faith, but that what man is asked to believe, in faith, should not be contrary to reason.

Now some might immediate baulk at his, but the point is, as Aquinas stated, regarding metaphysics, you "can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections.”

That last phrase is key - refusal to concede does not make someone right or wrong, but simply means that one refuses to accept the answer to objections.

When I was serving on jury duty, the judge said:
"It is the business of the court to lay the facts before you, it is your duty to decide upon the truth."

It is something I return to often.

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Belief - an assent to a proposition or an affirmation, the acceptance of a fact, opinion or assertation as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or abosute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence. Belief admits of all degrees from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance.

Knowledge - The act or state of knowing, clear perception of fact, truth, or duty, certain apprehension, familiar cognizance; cognition, the highest degree of speculative faculties, consists in the perception of the truth of affirmative or negative propostitions.

It seems to me the difference between "Knowledge" and "Belief" is simple.

Knowledge is an objective perception of things, wherein

Belief is the acceptance of the perception of things.

Knowledge is the acquiring of information or data, wherein

Belief is an opinion formed either based on acquired information or data, or based on intuitive insight (information or data not logically and/or methodically acquired.

Knowledge is objective, wherein Belief is subjective.

I see through my eyes, hear through my ears, feel with my nerves, move with my limbs, sense the rhythms of my body, form thoughts in my mind (these things I observe, hence my cognition or knowledge).

I therefore believe I am alive (my assenting perception of this "truth").

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[mee]

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. John 17;3 so who is the true God?

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,

You alone are the Most High over all the earth psalm 83;18

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by Thomas

In conclusion: There are no "facts". Just beliefs supported by other beliefs.

I'm not with you on this one, DIKL. What about the fruits of empirical science? Is the boiling point or freezing point of water a fact, or a belief?

So we have verifiable data: gravity, cause and effect, etc.

I agree Thomas. We can use observations of natural phenomena, like boiling water or gravity as common ground and first stepping stone for further understanding. Maybe we could call the observations "facts", as all human beings could agree to seeing the same thing.

However, as soon as we try to interpret the observation, we're getting into beliefs. When using the word "gravity", we are already in an explanation model rooted in Newton and Einstein. I believe that the the observation that all objects fall toward the centre of the earth has been "explained" since the dawn of man. In ancient Greece, I believe the theory was that "matter wants to unite and be whole, so it's natural that objects fall down to earth". Later, Newton said that matter attracts matter. Even later, Einstein said it is not matter attracting matter - it is matter curving the fabric of universe, with implications even for light itself. Notice that Newtons models haven't been discarded, they are still valid and even more practical than Einsteins for "non-relativistic" conditions (e.g. for velocities <1/3 of the speed of light).

In the scientific tradition, a theory is valuable if it can predict natural phenomena. Theories that predict with accuracy and under many different conditions replace more "vague" theories. So, theories come and go in an almost Darwinian manner. Still, some of them have been around for long and are considered "laws" - not theories - of nature.

Here's a quote how scientific ideas evolve that I find interesting. It's from the book "Foresight and Understanding - An enquiry into the aims of Science" by Stephen Toulmin:
"For, though Nature must of course be left to answer to our interrogations for herself, it is always we who frame the questions. And the questions we ask inevitably depend on prior theoretical considerations. We are here concerned, not with prejudiced belief, but rather with preformed concepts; and, to understand the logic of science, we must recognize that 'preconceptions' of this kind are both inevitable and proper - if suitably tentative and subject to reshaping in the light of our experience."

And another quote from the same book:
"There is only one way of seeing one's own spectacles clearly: that is, to take them off. It is impossible to to focus both on them and through them at the same time. A similar difficulty attaches to the fundamental concepts of science. We see the world through them to such an extent that we forget what it would look like without them: our very commitment to them tends to blind us to other possibilities. Yet a proper sense of the growth and development of our ideas will come only if we are prepared to unthink them.

We are justified in placing the trust in them that we do, only because - and to the extent that - they have proved their worht in competition with alternatives: if earlier men had never thought in other terms than we do, then we we ourselves would simply be carrying on a traditional habit. We shall understand the merits of your own ideas, instead of taking them for granted, only if we are prepared to look at these alternatives on their own terms and recognize why they failed."

[Thomas]

Hi DIKL -

This is indeed a slippery topic - probably better suited to the 'Philosophy' section, but wortth discussion none the less.

I can't afford to get too involved right now ... I'm deep into Lonergan and Cognitive Theory as a means of determining Objectivity ... so its relevant to ths discussion, but I don't want to pre-empt my own learning process by jumping to conclusions before the data has had time to 'sink in'.

But to give you an idea of where I am, otherwise:
I think we're skirting around the idea of what constitutes a 'fact' - and are such facts then carved in stone, as it were, for it would appear, as you demonstrate, they are not, and I can agree with that. Facts are like truths in this sense, then can change.

On another tack, 'philosophy' ceases to be meaningful when it arrives at a situation of 'this is it' as it were - philosophy must always acknowledge that it is 'an enquiry' and once an answer has been attained, that is no reason for the enquiry to cease, rather it moves on.

I 'believe' there are facts ... slam your fingers in the door, the functioning of a mousetrap, the earth orbits the sun, people grow older, not younger ... can we say there are 'laws' which govern and determine nature, and such laws determine the facts, even if we are uncertain as to precisely how, and why, such laws function?

My big issue in this kind of debate is people who argue the case for relativity, that every position is equal to every other position, than nothing can be said for sure, etc., etc.

Pope Benedict talks of the 'dictatorship of relativism', which I would call the tyranny of mediocrity ... and which leads to an 'intellectual nihilism' which is an abdication of responsibility.

Hope that gives you some idea. I think that when a physicist says 'nothing is real' such a phrase gets picked up and passes into the language of popular culture, so everyone says, 'nothing is real' - but I bet the physicist would be horrified at how that phrase is applied.

Loose thoughts, I know, but time presses...

Thomas

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Belief - an assent to a proposition or an affirmation, the acceptance of a fact, opinion or assertation as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or abosute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence. Belief admits of all degrees from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance.

Knowledge - The act or state of knowing, clear perception of fact, truth, or duty, certain apprehension, familiar cognizance; cognition, the highest degree of speculative faculties, consists in the perception of the truth of affirmative or negative propostitions.

With these definitions in mind, let me then ask a few questions. Do we believe or know that Earth is round? I mean, we haven't verified it ourselves, have we? We know it's round because all people and all books around us say it's round. (Except, of course, the Flat Earth Society :-) What about the speed of light? Why does water boil? What is water?

All of us that aren't experts will probably revert to books and such to answer the questions. And according to the definition above, a belief consists of "reliance on word or testimony". Notice also, that belief "admits of all degrees from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance". What is then the difference between a belief in which I have the fullest assurance, and something I know?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

It seems to me the difference between "Knowledge" and "Belief" is simple.

Knowledge is an objective perception of things, wherein

Belief is the acceptance of the perception of things.

The definition states that knowledge is "clear perception" of things, whereas you state "objective" perceptions of things. For me, these are different things. If I have clear perception of something and I am 100% convinced it is true, there is no guarantee that you will agree to it and consider it "knowledge". "Objective" perception could be obtained, maybe, through a measuring device, but only if we both agree that the device is suitable for study of the topic at hand. Stated differently, I think that knowledge is a belief that the majority of people deem true.

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi DIKL -

This is indeed a slippery topic - probably better suited to the 'Philosophy' section, but wortth discussion none the less.

From what I can see, most of the topics on CR are somewhat 'slippery'. And all of them are worth the discussion, I believe. Places like this are gems on the Internet. :-)

I can't afford to get too involved right now ... I'm deep into Lonergan and Cognitive Theory as a means of determining Objectivity ... so its relevant to ths discussion, but I don't want to pre-empt my own learning process by jumping to conclusions before the data has had time to 'sink in'.

It honors you that you respect your subject so much that you'd stay out of the discussion to protect yourself from bias. But I'm grateful for your comments so far. You and the others enable me to understand my own ideas better. Hope for more!

My big issue in this kind of debate is people who argue the case for relativity, that every position is equal to every other position, than nothing can be said for sure, etc., etc.

I understand. My issue is contrary. I see much more people that are too sure the world is "like this and only like this!".

Still, coming from opposite perspectives, I think we are mutually benefiting from the discussion!

Pope Benedict talks of the 'dictatorship of relativism', which I would call the tyranny of mediocrity ... and which leads to an 'intellectual nihilism' which is an abdication of responsibility.

And a sad world that would lead to, I agree fully with you. But, I hope you don't take offence in my stance. I really do believe that all positions are equal in worth. The universe holds countless possibilities, and each human has his intepretation of each possibility. I cannot help but feel humble in front of such complexity.
Nevertheless, I believe that we must have the courage to take a position and to act, in spite of all this insecurity. As we act, we are also showing what position we deem 'truer' than all other.

Thomas, your discomfort with this all-encompassing insecurity (that's my intepretation, at least) is at the core of another of my questions. Do we have religions and science because we 'need' explanations of the world?

Loose thoughts, I know, but time presses...

Thomas

Thanks for sharing them.

DIKL