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.
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?
Re: 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?
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!)
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.
Knowlegde is usually defined as justified belief, but its strange that what justifies our belief is just another belief. I mean, "justification" is not an absolute and external thing so it can be used to objectively distinguish between knowledge and belief, but "justification" is a belief of ours. How do we justify our "justification" ? Its impossible.
That led me to think that if some kind of "justification" exists, then it must be subjective like intuition is. In the end, intuition could be important to acquire knowledge. People always tried to separate intuition from knowledge as if it was not needed, and as if knowledge could be obtained only by logic reasoning, but like even science is discovering today, there are problems that cannot be solved or even described by logic reasoning. This means there are things that cannot be reduced to a set of propositions, so they can´t be described by logic, and much less they can be analyzed by it.
Difference between knowledge and belief
One simple, and useful, framework for distinguishing knowledge from belief is the following: (1) A belief is an opinion in the absence of supporting empirical evidence; it’s a matter of faith, not reason (it can’t be proved or disproved). (2) Knowledge is an opinion also—a working hypothesis—but it’s one for which substantial, public (or potentially public), cogent, empirical evidence exists to support it; that is, knowledge is a conclusion warranted by a preponderance of evidence and experience. (3) Knowledge in the sense of infallible apprehension or grasp of reality—what is ontologically “true”—is probably not possible. Instead, knowledge seems always to be contingent: new evidence as it becomes available may further support it or may disprove it. (See PRAGMATIC RATIONALISM: AN INTRODUCTION by Frank Robert Vivelo, Verlaine Publishing, 2013, from which the above is taken.)