Believing and knowing

[KimmyCharmeleon]

A few notes I have.

The two cognitive states are believing and knowing. Beliefs can be either true or false, so there is no direct connection from beliefs to truth (in other words, belief doesn't always equal truth).
Believing and knowing are two different things, knowing is much stronger.

It is part of the meaning of knowing, that whatever you know, must really be the case. Knowing implies truth. Knowing involves belief - if you know something, then you believe in it. When we know something, we have good reasons for believing it.

Knowledge and certainty must not be confused. You cannot guarantee something completely, as science cannot prove something entirely. It is not indubitable (beyond doubt). Statements of preference (factual) must not be confused with value judgments (statements that judge on this preference).

What do ya think?

 

[Peter Parka]

I think a lot of debates on this forum in this section would be much more intelligent and productive if people could grasp this simple fact.:thumbup

 

[dkwrtw]

lol too many people think they know everything about everything, and will stand by it til the bitter end.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Oh, I should also make it clear. While knowing implies you believe, believing does not imply that you know

 

[dkwrtw]

in most peoples eyes believing = knowing, and no amount of evidence or logic will change their mind.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

in most peoples eyes believing = knowing, and no amount of evidence or logic will change their mind.

I know, it's like some people think that if they believe it'll magically be true somehow.
I don't believe in magic, as much as a magician does.

 

[freakofnature]

So what do you think about believing something that you know is true but cannot be proven?

 

[brieze]

I think it's human nature to have personal truths. And in the eyes of the person, it's usually hard to convince them it's actually a belief. And that, I think is one of the main reasons there can never be peace on forums.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

So what do you think about believing something that you know is true but cannot be proven?

How do you know it is true in the first place?

 

[freakofnature]

I think it's human nature to have personal truths. And in the eyes of the person, it's usually hard to convince them it's actually a belief. And that, I think is one of the main reasons there can never be peace on forums.

IMO, belief and truth can be the same thing. I think the problems come when people can't differentiate between belief and fact.

 

[freakofnature]

How do you know it is true in the first place?

Because sometimes there are just things that you KNOW. For example, I know my sister loves me. This cannot be proven scientifically and I would probably classify it as a belief, but I know it's truth.

 

[Maldoror]

people who know too many things tend to be wrong about too many things.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

IMO, belief and truth can be the same thing. I think the problems come when people can't differentiate between belief and fact.

Beliefs can be either true or false, but only true if there's good reason for it (or what we call, evidence).

Because sometimes there are just things that you KNOW. For example, I know my sister loves me. This cannot be proven scientifically and I would probably classify it as a belief, but I know it's truth.

Love is one of those things that is difficult to measure by a scientific method. Depends how you want to prove it really. You have to really define what love is first, to be able to observe it in someone's behaviour. But because this definition is so variable between every human being, it has many different modes, etc, how do you go about it? I read in a textbook actually, that science is not good for dealing with questions of meaning such as:

• Does the universe have a purpose?
• Does life have a purpose?
• Does my life have a purpose?
• What are the most meaningful and important things in life?
• Does my suffering have meaning?
• Does anything I do have enduring significance or meaning?

And it is not good for dealing with questions of value such as:

• Is abortion always wrong?
• Is capital punishment justifiable?
• Should gay marriage be legal?
• Is it ever right to lie?
• Should human cloning be banned?
• What is a 'just' society?
• Is freedom more important than equality?

What I'm saying is, they aren't scientific questions, and they aren't because it's not testable. And everything in science has to be testable, otherwise it is just pseudoscience.
Some people will argue that beliefs and things of meaning or value are just mere beliefs or opinions. But people have to remember that not all facts are scientific facts. So there are ways of knowing the truth/facts without science, because science limits itself to what can and cannot be tested, it won't pretend to answer them. Love is one of those things, it's not really testable, so science can't test it. You could try, but it is questionable.

(Reference: Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2005). Science and pseudoscience. In Critical thinking: A student's introduction (2nd ed., pp. 454-489). Boston: McGraw-Hill.)

 

[freakofnature]

:nod: Anything you want to say is fact I think needs to be proven scientifically. But I think there are a lot of things out there that cannot be scientifically proven but are still just as true. When debating I think it's important to differentiate between what is a truth and what is a fact. A lot of people don't understand this and base their arguements on a statement that they present as a fact when it isn't a fact at all.

 

[freakofnature]

By the way, I think I must have been abducted by aliens and brainwashed or something. I don't normally post in topics like this. :unsure: :ninja

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

There are different theories of truth:
(1) Consensus theory - if everyone agrees, then it is true.
(2) Relativist theory - true by taking something to be true.
(3) Realist theory - dependent on the facts and what actually is the case
Truth is objective and independent of our beliefs, desires and wishes. This means that there is a difference between how we find out the facts and the facts themselves.
Some facts we might never know, but doesn't mean they aren't facts just because we don't know them.

To say all facts are scientific facts is wrong. In fact, that very phrase is not even a fact, and is not even scientifically testable like all facts should be. The statement is self-refuting, false even in its own terms. It undermines itself. You may have heard of scientism. Followers of scientism often claim that all facts are scientific facts.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Oh, and I definitely agree that people who claim things are "facts" need to have this supported with scientific evidence.

 

[HK]

I think part of the problem is, some people think classify a strong belief as knowledge. I mean, kids believe in Santa Claus. If they were capable of discussing it in detail, they'd probably tell you that of course they know he exists, because they write letters to him and he brings them presents using magic on Christmas. But eventually that belief becomes actual knowledge - he doesn't exist at all, he's just a pleasant story to explain a holiday to young children.

 

[Minor Axis]

A few notes I have.

The two cognitive states are believing and knowing. Beliefs can be either true or false, so there is no direct connection from beliefs to truth (in other words, belief doesn't always equal truth).
Believing and knowing are two different things, knowing is much stronger.

It is part of the meaning of knowing, that whatever you know, must really be the case. Knowing implies truth. Knowing involves belief - if you know something, then you believe in it. When we know something, we have good reasons for believing it.

Knowledge and certainty must not be confused. You cannot guarantee something completely, as science cannot prove something entirely. It is not indubitable (beyond doubt). Statements of preference (factual) must not be confused with value judgments (statements that judge on this preference).

What do ya think?

I like the distinction you are making, but I also know that people misuse the term 'know' regarding faith, even in this forum!