What is teh difference between knowledge and belief?

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 Ushgarak
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.

No, you just need to think a little to see that we can only have faith, or believe that empiricism is a valid way to obtain knowledge. I´m saying that we must assume that the proposition "Empiricism is a valid way to obtain knowledge" is true, this proposition is a postulate, not a theorem, there is no way to PROVE, or CONCLUDE that this proposition is true, it must be assumed to be true.

I´ ve showed my perspective using logic, and reason, but you just said that "faith or intuition are not as firm as sensory experience". Why do you say that !? Is it your faith ? Next time give a argumentation based on logic, and reason like I did, especially if you want to defend the perspective of empiricism. Its weird to try to defend empiricism based on faith, and intuition. Unless, of course... if you are not able to perceive those contradictions in your argument.

Originally posted by AOR
I believe that if there are clouds in the sky, then it is going to rain.) Now the belief then becomes information if there are clouds, or there aren't, and it begins to rain. I say information because information can then be disproving. When there are clouds in the sky, and it doesn’t rain, than it causes you to question your information and belief, and thus resulting into an even deeper and more concise hypothesis. Through thorough investigation and zeal to find the truth do we notice that the color of the clouds determines rain or not. Therefore when we go back and fix our belief to, I believe that if the clouds show dark colors, then the percentage of rain is higher. Then that becomes a strong information.

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.

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.

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....

Originally posted by Atlantis001
No, you just need to think a little to see that we can only have faith, or believe that empiricism is a valid way to obtain knowledge. I´m saying that we must assume that the proposition "Empiricism is a valid way to obtain knowledge" is true, this proposition is a postulate, not a theorem, there is no way to PROVE, or CONCLUDE that this proposition is true, it must be assumed to be true.

I´ ve showed my perspective using logic, and reason, but you just said that "faith or intuition are not as firm as sensory experience". Why do you say that !? Is it your faith ? Next time give a argumentation based on logic, and reason like I did, especially if you want to defend the perspective of empiricism. Its weird to try to defend empiricism based on faith, and intuition. Unless, of course... if you are not able to perceive those contradictions in your argument.

The problem is, your argument leaves behind the realm of sanity and sense and enters into the realm of pointless speculation. I honestly cannot fathom the lack of brainpower and common sense needed to discard sensory evidence simply because it can be conceived that it is not so. There is absolutely no reason to think that way at all- I have thought a LOT about it, which is rather my point, and why I see your view as facile and pointless. The reason and logic you espose actually fail you here. The fact that snesory evidence is there and before us is enough reason for you to have to give reason for me to NOT accept in it, not the other way around- this is what massively distinguishes it from faith.

The whole line of reasoning is such a total waste of time, after all. And then Spelljammer joins the pointlessness of it all with his comment- ok, SJ, if you want to go back to a world of starvation and disease that doesn't actually approach the term civilisation then feel free. Or perhaps you might recognise that people who have not goine down the silly speculative route of Atlantis here have created a world which is immeasurably better than that of times past- something very important to note when we are posting here on the internet, which is a marvel of reason- and you may nore that modern civilisation is indeed in good shape compared to the alternative. You don't like liars? I don't like idiots.

The problem is, your argument leaves behind the realm of sanity and sense and enters into the realm of pointless speculation. I honestly cannot fathom the lack of brainpower and common sense needed to discard sensory evidence simply because it can be conceived that it is not so. There is absolutely no reason to think that way at all- I have thought a LOT about it, which is rather my point, and why I see your view as facile and pointless. The reason and logic you espose actually fail you here. The fact that snesory evidence is there and before us is enough reason for you to have to give reason for me to NOT accept in it, not the other way around- this is what massively distinguishes it from faith.

1. You still do not present any argument to defend your point. Until now, you are solely based on your own faith that my perspective is flawed, something that directly contradicts your own perspective.

2. You say that my perspective is flawed, but you don´t explain why. Anything that is flawed can be proven to be flawed. Now I say to you : "Prove that my perspective is flawed."