Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

is anything known for absolute certainty, beyond all doubt? can knowledge actually be proven?

The short answer is no.
But we can get close

No it can't nothing is certain... Except for yourself... You can be certain of yourself to some extent, the rest is a big unknown. Nothing can be proven. All that we can do is create theory's some more likely then others.

Knowledge is knowing something.
Belief is not knowing something, but under a very good impression that's the way it is.

A Christian BELIEVES in God.
A Christian KNOWS he's Christian.

I BELEIVE fruit grows on other planets.
I KNOW an apple is red.

Get it?

Nothing can be proven absolutely because first we need to define proof, and then prove something based on that definition of proof which you adopted. But you can never prove that a definition of proof is right because to prove it you will need another definition of proof.

So knowledge is based on a definition of proof that we believe in without proving it.

To me the answer is NO.....always there is somethings else...something extraordinary....something we can't explain...just as the findings we always see in physics sciences.....through theories...there is some examples of proof....though not to the conclusions that would be satisfactory to many.

Knowledge is facts..right?..Belief is somethings that can not be proved because we don't have all the facts yet...but still..belief is something an individual can experience.....yes it is....

Not talking about a diety....just the fact mame, just the facts....

I dont know an apples really red...but I do know an apples really red from my perspective of reality.

Well apple can be different types of red and yellow and green too..

Originally posted by Spelljammer

I KNOW an apple is red.

we all know there are red apples, but how do we know that we all see the same colour when we refer to the colour red? it could be that we all see different colours but we have been told that that particular colour is red. how can we describe the colour red, other than it is red? so there is know way of even prooving wot colour red is, red is just whatever colour we believe it to be

Do you just like to chatter? Cause really that's all your doing.

Blahblahblah "we only perceive it red" duh, that's all we know. In our limited 4-dimensions, the apple is red, the apple is sweet, the apple is round and grows off a tree.

I don't care what an apple does in Bizzaro world, I don't care what an apple isn't to something else's perception, that is beyond my level of comprehension. I reside on 4 dimensions, therfore I'm going to worry about the laws that 4th dimension has made for me.

The apple is red. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Biscuit
Originally posted by Spelljammer

I KNOW an apple is red.

we all know there are red apples, but how do we know that we all see the same colour when we refer to the colour red? it could be that we all see different colours but we have been told that that particular colour is red. how can we describe the colour red, other than it is red? so there is know way of even prooving wot colour red is, red is just whatever colour we believe it to be

I know that we all see the same thing because we have a genetic code this is almost identical. Now a dog will see color different than us, but we, in general, see color the same way.

which goes back to the frequency idea.

Originally posted by Biscuit
is anything known for absolute certainty, beyond all doubt? can knowledge actually be proven? YES...NO...AND SCREW IT YOU RESIGN!

well the point was that all of our 'knowledge' is based on belief, either our own or the belief of others. so wot makes us willing to accept certain beliefs as knowledge and not others?

its the system holding us back from the truth...

If we believe our senses, then yes.

Originally posted by Biscuit
well the point was that all of our 'knowledge' is based on belief, either our own or the belief of others. so wot makes us willing to accept certain beliefs as knowledge and not others?

Belief is the mental acceptance of the actuality, truth, or validity of something. There are two kinds of beliefs:

Faith, a belief that is not based on physical proof or material evidence.

Knowledge, a belief that can be directly observed, perceived, or leaned.

so in other words, knowledge is "proved" by our senses??

Originally posted by Biscuit
so in other words, knowledge is "proved" by our senses??

not neccesarily, but very much yes. Proof can range from divine interventions, to meer coincidences.

Originally posted by Biscuit
is anything known for absolute certainty, beyond all doubt? can knowledge actually be proven?

Nobody will ever know the answer through knowledge, because all the knowledge in the universe will not answer the question "Why does the universe exist?" and "What is beyond all the universes?"

Belief however isn't tied back by some material object, it is more likely to be true.

You will never know what is the smallest object known, because there will allways be something that makes the bigger thing tick. A glitch in knowledge.

Originally posted by Biscuit
so in other words, knowledge is "proved" by our senses??

Yes, but can we prove that our senses are a valid way to determine what is knowledge or not ? No, we must have faith that is true.

Knowledge is something that is known, and may or may not be able to be proven. Belief is proven or unproven, but something someone holds faith in.

All knowledge presupposes the accuracy of sensory experience.

Since as if you don't presuppose that, you may as well never bother doing anything, including breathing, it's a pretty sensoible view to take.

That being the case, the difference between the two is patently obvious; knowledge is the acquisiton of factual information (though, obviously, that is prone to error), whereas belief is a point of view held regardless of factual information, for better or worse.

Only the most extreme pedant would bother to say that he 'believes' that tables exist. We know they do.

In epistemology it is said that knowledge is justified beliefs, first we have a belief, then we need to use a method of justification to justify our believe. When we do that the belief becomes knowledge. But the method of justification, that in many cases is the empirism (the belief that knowledge is acquired by observation or our senses) is not provable, one must have faith that it is true. It is totally arbitrary. In the exact same way one justify their knowledge by observation, or empirism, I could justify mine by pure faith or intuition.

knowledge is fact
Belief is faith...

Knowledge has evidence
Belief has no evidence but hope that it's there..

Originally posted by Atlantis001
In epistemology it is said that knowledge is justified beliefs, first we have a belief, then we need to use a method of justification to justify our believe. When we do that the belief becomes knowledge. But the method of justification, that in many cases is the empirism (the belief that knowledge is acquired by observation or our senses) is not provable, one must have faith that it is true. It is totally arbitrary. In the exact same way one justify their knowledge by observation, or empirism, I could justify mine by pure faith or intuition.

You mean empiricism.

I think empiricism is flawed in many ways- most notably once you begin to consider the area of a priori knowledge.

Intuition falls under the remit of 'knowledge' I feel; faith under 'belief'.

There is a definite overlap though, as you point out.

this is all why science and religion need philosophers to question them.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
In epistemology it is said that knowledge is justified beliefs, first we have a belief, then we need to use a method of justification to justify our believe. When we do that the belief becomes knowledge. But the method of justification, that in many cases is the empirism (the belief that knowledge is acquired by observation or our senses) is not provable, one must have faith that it is true. It is totally arbitrary. In the exact same way one justify their knowledge by observation, or empirism, I could justify mine by pure faith or intuition.

Seriously, I do think you have to be deficient in the head to truly believe that faith or intuition are as firm as sensory experience.

Luckily, most people are not that silly, hence modern civilisation works.

Knowledge is based on factual evidence. Beliefs may or may not have factual bases but are sustained by faith. Delusions are beliefs that are maintained regardless of overwhelming invalidating factual evidence.

If my heart stops beating, circulation to my brain ceases, my brain will die. If my heart stops I will die - is knowledge. It's fact - regardless of whether I believe it or not.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If my heart stops beating, circulation to my brain ceases, my brain will die. If my heart stops I will die - is knowledge. It's fact - regardless of whether I believe it or not.

no-one can prove this either because everybody believes it too strongly, maybe if we really and truly belived that we dont need a circulation then we could live without one...who knows....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Luckily, most people are not that silly, hence modern civilisation works.
Suicide rates, crime, pestilence, disease, debautchery, disrespect, and war are at an all time high. But modern society works.

I hate liers.

thats because soeity isnt moving forward. its trying to hold on to the past, but it cant escape the direction we are going.

Move foward to what though? People have forgotten how to be human. They no longer care about funding for healthcare, social security, projects to help end hunger or help the enviorment. All they care about is the consumerist market and thier stupid ploys to gain your money. "Look at this new kick ass Ipod! Buy buy buy!" make me you fatcat bastard, come near me with your new gizmo whilest people are dieing of pestilance and disease and I'll cut you!

I hate this damn planet and the dumb ****s in it. Especialy those of my own country. They seem to be the most prone to stupidity and immorality..

i agree. i would say that the problem with our youth today is that we are to stupid to relize that we should be revolutionizing right now. there is so much crap going on in the world, but we only get angry when it effects our paychecks. Were to buisy watching the effects of things on tv but we never take the chance to get involved.... if only it was the sixties again.

Society should be moving forward, but instead we are moving backwards. think about it, our biggestconflicts in america is gay marriage, abortion, and evolution vs. creationalism. there are so many bigger issues, but were concentrated on little things that religion says is wrong.

Originally posted by Biscuit
no-one can prove this either because everybody believes it too strongly, maybe if we really and truly belived that we dont need a circulation then we could live without one...who knows.... Do you really believe that? That would be extending human beliefs to define physical reality. "If my heart stops I die." is pretty is pretty basic knowledge no matter what my beliefs.
(In substance not name) hydrogen isn't hydrogen because I believe it is hydrogen, if I really believe that hydrogen is carbon it doesn't change it into carbon.

The only difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge is egotistical, whereas belief is humble.

Originally posted by Biscuit
is anything known for absolute certainty, beyond all doubt? can knowledge actually be proven?
I believe some things can be proven beyond doubt.

Originally posted by Wonderer
The only difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge is egotistical, whereas belief is humble.


Wonderer that a great realization.thumbsup

Knowledge can only be proven based on a definition for proof, what means that first you need to define proof. If I define proof like empiricism does then I can prove knowledge in the empiricist way. If I take another definition for proof then I will have another definition for knowledge. So what is considered knowledge by empiricism is not necessarily for other systems. Which system is the correct ? The knowledge of the answer in this question depends on your definition of proof.

Originally posted by Biscuit
it is fair to say then that we can only truly know things after they have happend, we can try to predict things based on the past but this assumes that the same thing will happen as has always happened. we cannot "know" when it will rain, we can only "know" when it is raining or has rained, but we can strongly believe it will rain and we can justify this belief by the fact that it always has rained before when the clouds are dark, it only becomes knowledge after it has happened.

That is why information is as high as we can go. Randomness is organized. As an oxi-moron as that may sound, it is true. Disorder has a form in which is presents itself. Continueing the example of a rain cloud, it is right we assume from past knowledge, from what else do we base our learning? Past knowledge. Therefore you continue to "experimentate" with the given data's to come up with solutions. Knowledge follows the path of science, but unproven beliefs follow the path of faith. Knowledge and belief work 50/50 of each other. Like I said before, knowledge can only take you so far, the rest you have to have faith. The meteorologist cand prove that it is going to rain by presenting evidense of color, humidity, and presence of clouds. But knowing isn't going to make it rain, it's having faith that with this past knowledge will prove it to precipitate.

I think the difference is that one is objective, the other subjective.

Knowledge generally is related to fact, things that can be tested perhaps, or proven. Ergo it's objective.

Belief is more subjective - a feeling, faith, and oppinion not necessarily backed up with anything approaching proof.

But beliefs can be proven

True, I probably should have added "generally" in there.

But then it comes to down to wording. If a belief is proven it seems to change from a a belief, a matter of faith, into fact. "I believe this is true" once it is proven then you can say "I know this is true" for there is no reason for it to be seen as belief any longer - it has that kind of validity.

But then there are things like "I believe in you", but that's different again.

Very true, but since when can solidify a belief? I believe it is going to rain, but it doesn't than it stays a belief. But if you believe again and it rains, but doesn't rain again what is it then. In the example of "I believe in you", if the person fails, are they still just a belief, or would your consistency prove other wise?

Originally posted by Biscuit
is anything known for absolute certainty, beyond all doubt? can knowledge actually be proven?

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/268/descarteslight1tk.png

You can doubt anything. In fact you can doubt everything! For instance, how do I know that this isn't all a dream or one grand hallucination? But in spite of this, there is one thing you can never doubt: that YOU exist.

In other words, you can sit there and systematically and successfully doubt all aspects of your experience, your history, the reality of everything in your environment - including your body itself. BUT, the one thing you can never doubt is the fact of your own existence. It is self-evident. No matter what else you doubt, YOU, the doubter, cannot doubt YOU, the doubter! Ultimately, this is the one thing, the only thing that you can know with certainty.

Think about it for a second and you may agree with Rene' Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum!" (I think, therefore I am!)

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9748/delamethodlight5mj.png

u cant actually doubt everything though, theoretically u can but not practically, which means there is something which makes us believe the things we do believe, does this mean they are certain or do we just assume them because its easier than questioning them.
Take for example the argument that one can doubt the existence of ones own body - does this mean that one can then jump into a fire without feeling pain? No, therefore our own natural dispositions tell us that our body DOES exist and no sceptic can argue that it doesn't because, there is more reason for us to believe that it does than there is for us to believe that it doesn't

my 2 cents, or maybe I'll just give 1 cent today.

Is believing that our bodies are made up of cells, organs, blood, all having their own functions knowledge? or just belief?

Is believing that there is a continent called South America and it is located south of the North American continent knowledge? or just belief?

Is believing that the planets Venus and Mars exist knowledge? or just belief?

Is believing in Bigfoot, ghost, life on other planets, and the loch ness monster knowledge? or just belief?

Answer these questions and you will have your answer.

Belief refers to a mental acceptance of the truth of some proposition, idea, statement. This means that you accept the truth of something, but it doesn' t mean that you are convinced of this truth with absolute certainty. A person can believe something without being able to claim to know it.

Knowledge is a justified, true belief. What this means is that for any belief to qualify as knowledge, you must first be justified in believing it, and second it must actually be a true proposition.

Through verification, we make sure that what hear has some basis in truth.