Man's ability to believe is only restricted by his power of fantasy.

Man's ability to know is restricted by his perception of reality, by his reasoning power, and by his biasses. Since his reasoning power is limited, his power of observation is subjective, and his biasses are manifold for they are in the realm of belief, the ability of man to know is very murky. He will know, but he will never know if his knowledge is precise or not, or how accurate it is. He can hone his knowledge, and update it, but it will never be a final update, it always will stand a chance of further updates in the future.

Man can't know fully. His knowledge is partial. Furthermore man will never be able to know the size or shape of the fraction of his knowledge which could be considered fully accurate and therefore not subject to future updates.

Man lives in a world which he considers only has one constant, whichi is change. Whereas Anaxamander perhaps was right, a XLMCDDXII B.C. Greek philosopher, who stated that there is no movement, no change, the world is solid and unchanging, and what we see as change is mere illusion.

Anaxamander could be right, and that is so because man can't measure the extent of his own knowledge. His knowledge changes, and together with it changes everything else in his world.

I mostly agree. However, the first statement strikes me as a conflation between belief and knowledge. If " Everything individuals believe is considered to be part of their knowledge base" is true, then it would follow that all belief is equal to knowledge, and belief in God is knowledge.

Belief can be true or false. Knowledge cannot be false.

Hey wux. Hope your doing well.





While I realize that many may hold that lack of contrary evidence is sufficient reason to believe something, I would say that that is insufficient reason. There is no contrary evidence to many unbelievable ideas, but we find no reason to believe those, nor usefulness in entertaining some of them.




This sort of account doesn't get us very far. Equating knowledge to an increment of certainty is a mistake in thought. Degrees of certainty, if taken to their extreme logical conclusion, will sometimes result in nonsensical claims, such as we cannot know anything.

I would say that knowledge is justified true belief.




"True knowledge" is redundant use of terms, because there is no such thing as false knowledge. Belief, on the other hand, can be false. We have no good reason to believe that the world will end anytime sooner than later, especially given our frame of spatiotemporal reference. As a matter of certainty, one surely cannot say that s/he has MORE sufficient reason to believe that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning. I mean, what reason is there to doubt that it will given that it has everyday of my life that I've paid attention?




No, it doesn't. I know what red hair is.





So, you're saying that we can know some things. I agree.

I know that human behavior is largely unpredictable, if for no other reason than there is not usually enough relevant data to look at. On a much smaller scale, the precise location of an electron within the electron cloud is unpredictable as well, but the significance of that uncertainty plays no role whatsoever in whether or not I know what red hair is, and or whether or not that is justified true belief.





I disagree for reasons already given throughout.

Perhaps "murky" is a bit melodramatic.





As long as it takes an account of what it claims to, a knowledge claim need not be complete and exhausting of all relevant factual events in order to be true. As long as the update doesn't negate existing knowledge, there is no problem here.

Omniscience is impossible, knowledge is not. I'm pretty certain that I'm drinking coffee right now - as certain as I'll ever be about anything at all. Not all claims are negated by constant change.

In short...

knowledge is accrued.

Ooops.

I believe that what I believe I know.

Yea, pretty murky.

How we develop our system of values is based on what we believe. Therefore, the phrase "to my knowledge..." indicates that we accept our beliefs to be 'true'.

The only real knowledge we have, is information which we have been unable to falisfy - so by your view, there can be no knowledge other than what we have been unable to falsified.

We can build on theories which seem to have worked. Is the theory a "true" piece of information?

We assume it is if it holds up against testing. When we build on that theory and there is failure, we must determine where the connectin between the building blocks has broken down.

The methods of testing our information and assessing the outcomes are directly related to all the tools at our disposal including, education, intellectual ability, access to new information, and environmental factors including, the freedom to be at liberty to address falshoods,persuade others of the errors, and adapt to the social consequences.

The problem, which we have all come accross, is that when people realize that 'knowledge' is only permanent until it is falsified, they are unwilling to accept and incorporated new information primarily becasue they either cannot understand the processes involved, or becasue their own 'beliefs'/'knowledge' have not been disproved by the new information.

There is bias attacthed to everything we believe, OR we simply believe because to us, the information makes sense than anything else, OR we take the word of respected authority figures. Example:quantum particals - ok, although I'm skeptical about definitions and even possibilities surrounding the research, I accept that there IS something to be researched. Why? Two reasons, first, I lack the information to understand the whole concept, and secondly, I respect the intellect of those individuals whom I consider to be well educated and well versed in the sceiences.

You are correct that many people find no reason to believe 'unbelievable ideas' but there are many more people who think that what others view as 'unbelievable' is simply a matter of faith and/or lack of understanding/education.

Example: For those who find the idea of an involved 'god-creator'an unbelievable idea - can it also useless information?

We beleive that many good and bad value systems stem from such beliefs. So having information/knowledge of those beliefs is vital to understanding and relating to all those many poeple. It is ALL knowledge because it IS information that we can use, even if only to show the logic errors that occur between the many beliefs which cause discourse to sociability.

Edited to add: Associating colors to knowledge is an inadequate example. Colors come in all shades - at what point does red become pink, blue become purple, and yellow become orange?

I would adjust the definition to:

Knowledge is the sum total of all the information we choose to use in support, or justification, of our beliefs which we accept as true.





As I posted earlier - Adequate criterion for sufficient reason to believe something, is a matter of:

Agreed. I believe "X" means I believe "X" is true. The phrase "to my knowledge" can be very misleading.



Not sure what "real knowledge" is supposed to be setting out here.

You've misunderstood my view. I've been pointing out that not all claims are falsifiable. It is because we know that much, that we know that just because a claim is unable to be falsified does not constitute adequate reason to call it a bit of knowledge.

The flying spaghetti monster comes immediately to mind.



I think this is conflating belief and knowledge again. That makes it very difficult to understand the difference between the two. What do the scarequotes around the term knowledge represent here?

Agreed. That bias is our pre-existing belief system.



That's where good argument/justification comes into play.



Well... first of all, I never said that all unbelievable claims are useless. Secondly, there is a huge difference between usable information and knowledge. To call all usable information knowledge is a mistake. I can use another's false belief to show them how it is in error, that would be putting false belief to use. It does not make that bit of usable information knowledge.



I disagree with the charge of inadequacy, and do not see the significance of this objection.

Not only do I know what red hair is, I also know what a pink rose looks like, what blue skies are, what a purple gown looks like, what color lemons are, and what orange things have in common. I need not know at what point red becomes pink to know what both of those look like. All I need to know is how to use the word correctly.

Are you denying that I know what red hair is?

This isn't right. I mean according to what you've set out here...

If I choose to use the Bible and my communities belief system as the sole means of justifying my belief that the Bible is the word of God, then because that is the information that I choose to use in support, or justification of my belief that the Bible is the word of God, then that makes all of the information being used knowledge.

Likewise, if the natives choose to use their pre-existing belief(s) in support of their belief in the volcano god/dess, then - based upon what you've set out - it would follow that all of the information they've used is knowledge.




So, when I'm learning that that is called a "tree", I must employ all of the above in order to have sufficient reason to believe that that is "a tree"?

Ok – I just spent over an hour considering a response to Creative's last few posts before I began to review the earlier discussion, one more time.

There are many points that can argued but it occurs to me that the sum total of any individual’s knowledge, defined by you, Creative as



is but a very tiny fraction, if existent at all, of the sum total of information which any given individual equates with knowledge.

Example


If you see the same hair in the dark, what color is the hair?
If the range of light changes, it’s possible to see that same head of hair as green, do you believe me?
So let’s test your knowledge (which cannot be false) - What color do you see when you see the color white?
What color do you see when you see the color black?

Perhaps you can explain why you call White ‘white’ and Black ‘black’ as being knowledge when that is actually a false belief? As for me, I would simply say ---- “Well, to my knowledge…” which of course you take exception to.

If I understand your position correctly, you are attempting to discover how people can discern knowledge from falsehood.

What I am saying is that unless you can put together every single piece of knowledge (that is knowledge which cannot be false) with more certainty than you have judged your knowledge of color, then we have to accept what others have already tried to explain.



But you seem to be hung up on whether information we take for knowledge(as in believe is knowledge) is in fact insufficient to be considered knowledge and in your words –



At this juncture I would like for you to convince me that we even have sufficient knowledge (knowledge that cannot be false) that is available to the masses of the world in order to prevent reliance on belief for the information that helps us survive, thrive, and advance as species?

In other words, how much of what you call knowledge could people in all regions of the world utilize to determine the falsehoods of their own beliefs – which they take for knowledge?

Or perhaps the discussion should not be about knowledge and its truth value rather, it might be better to discuss why changing the opinion of others is more logical than allowing them to continue believing their particular brand of falsehood, over our own.

Not sure what you're getting at here Di. 1.I've never used those terms(the sum total...), let alone define them in that way. 2.The use of "if existent at all" implies that you doubt belief/knowledge can be true. I am less concerned with what folk mistakenly call "knowledge" and more concerned with constitutes being a bit of knowledge. Knowing the latter entails knowing the former.





Not sure what you're getting at here either. This looks irrelevant to me. I mean, how does the difference between what red hair looks like in the day and/or night have anything to do with whether or not I know what red hair is? I mean, evidently you know what red hair is as well. You also know that it looks different at night.





Of course I believe you, and that would be green hair. I know what green hair is as well as you, and evidently we both know the difference between the two.







Neither black nor white are colors.





Yes, and afterwards can you can explain for me what this question is supposed to mean? I mean what is "a false belief"?

My explanation is as follows...

I call white things "white" and black things "black" because I know how to use the word(s) correctly. Are you denying that?





Really Di? I mean are you seriously doubting that I know what red hair is?



Just wanted to note that I've not objected to the above claim.





There is no such thing as knowledge which would prevent reliance on belief. Knowledge requires belief. Knowledge is justified true belief.



A completely different kind of question. All of it. I mean if their beliefs are false, then there is some bit of knowledge and/or fact somewhere that shows the falsehood and/or casts reasonable doubt.



There's a whole lot packed up in there Di. Let's leave it be for a bit, and focus upon exactly what you're objecting to. Are you denying that 1.knowledge must be true, 2.we can acquire such knowledge, 3.that we can know what constitutes being knowledge, or something else perhaps?



I'm a bit puzzled.

See if I can help matters out a bit...

I mean, overall, wux was denying certainty. The problem is that that argument cannot stand under the force of it's own weight. One must be certain in order to believe that one cannot be certain. If one can be certain about that, then one can be certain about more than that, because "one cannot be certain" is utterly meaningless when standing all alone.



On the other hand, a claim is true regardless of whether or not it is believed to be. However, it cannot be known without first being believed. That would be to say, I know "X" but I do not believe that "X" is true.

Knowledge must be true.

Alright folks...

It seems that there is some serious doubt involved. I mean, others seem to be very apprehensive in claiming that we can acquire and/or possess knowledge. At first blush, this may seem well-grounded. I mean, afterall, we - as humans - have been wrong on many, many occasions regarding our belief about the way things are. It only follows that there have been many times where we have called something "knowledge" and it later turned out to be false. Let it be clear that I do not deny that, neither would I, nor need I. However, I will be extra careful here and note here that how we take an account for such a situation can help and/or hinder future understanding. That being said, I'd like to develop a couple of different considerations that directly concern what being mistaken further warrants(or not). In layman's terms, so... where can we go from here?


Problem: We've mistakenly called justified false belief "knowledge" in past.


1. That which was once thought to be true, and thus called "a bit of knowledge" at the time but is later found to be false was never a bit of knowledge to begin with. Many times, we had good reason to believe "X" based upon what we knew and/or thought we knew at the time. So we did, and we did so for what was called "good reason" at that time. What I want to say here is that all we can ask of ourselves is to do the best we can given what is known. At the time, we called it "knowledge". However, we later found that we were mistaken by virtue of finding out that that bit of so-called "knowledge" was not true. It was false because it lacked correspondence to fact/reality. That, and that alone, warrants discontinuing subsequent belief.

1a.From this we can conclude that justification and belief are both insufficient for knowledge. That is part of my argument regarding why/how knowledge must be true, because justified false belief exists.


2.It is a matter of logic that just because we have been wrong about some things, it does not follow that we've been wrong about everything.


So, I'll conclude by asking what else do we do with the term "knowledge" as a result of knowing that we've been mistaken? We know we've been mistaken. We often know how we were mistaken. It ought be clear that some other bits of knowledge clearly remain intact. Why conclude that it is ok to call that which is known to be false "knowledge"?

Am I going wrong here, aside from being emotionally absent?

Creative soul: "I know what red hair is."

Okay. What is red hair?

"Red hair" is the recount of an observation. It in itself is not knowledge. "hair can be red" is knowledge, "Susan's hair is red" is knowledge. "red hair" is not knowledge. It states no fact, no event. It states nothing. It is a noun, with an adjective. For something to be known, it has to be expressed as a statement, and statements have verbs.

Therefore it does not have predictive value. It is not knowledge, so it has no predictive value. You looked for predictive value where I did not say there would be any. Knowledge has predictive value, adjectivized nouns don't.

Creative soul:
While I realize that many may hold that lack of contrary evidence is sufficient reason to believe something, I would say that that is insufficient reason.

There is no contrary evidence to many unbelievable ideas, but we find no reason to believe those, nor usefulness in entertaining some of them.

-------------

You made the mistake of mixing up the concepts "sufficient" and "necessary", that's all you did.

There is no contrary evidence to god's existence.

There is no contrary evidence that there is no god.

Anyone can believe in either the existence of a god, or in the non-existence of any non-zero number of gods.

So the lack of contrary evidence is sufficient, but not necessary, to believe something. You argued (using the wrong term) that "the lack of contrary evidence is not a necessary reason to believe something." However, in your wording of this argument you erroneously chose to use "sufficient" instead of "necessary".

Let me explain. If something is not contrary to evidence, so it is possible, we can still not believe it, and my statement still holds true. Why? Because the lack of contrary evidence is "sufficient" to beleive in it. It is not compelling us to believe in it, we can still choose not to believe it. But if someone beleives it, all we can say, well, it's not necessarily true how you believe it. To which they will say, well, I am not saying it's necessarily true, all I am saying is that I believe in it. It is sufficient to the beleiver, to know there is no refutation, although no evidence, either.

On the other hand, if no evidence existed to the contrary then that would be a necessary reason to believe it, then we could say, 'you must believe there is no god, since there is no contrary evidence he does not, and that alone is necessary to believe he exists', much like saying "you must not believe in god, since there is no contrary evidence that he does, and that alone is necessary to beleive he does not exist". So if you use "necessary", then a question of belief on no contrary evidence leads to a contradictory position, which is absurd and impossible. (Since it is necessary to believe that god exists, and it is necessary to believe god does not exist; both are necessary to believe.)

With "sufficient", however, both are allowed, in an either-or fashin (logicians would call it an XOR). You can believe in it, and another person can not believe in it. No logical problem there.

So you problem with this can be traced back to your mixing up the very important distinction of meaning between "necessary" with "sufficient".

Please try to work out the two terms, and create order in your thoughts. Then things shall fall into place, I am sure.

I would say that knowledge is justified true belief.

There are huge problems with this. How do you justify true belief? First of all, you have to establish what true belief is (please show us how to do that) and then you have to justify it.

The terms you expressed are too wide in possible meanings. I can refute each one of them, until we come to the definition of "predictive value", which will be what I'd been saying, but that would be tedious for me, and a lot of work, listing all possible meanings of your statement, and I would have to do a lot of work only because you chose to word your question insufficiently for precision of meaning. This I would find unfair.

If you would care to tell us exactly what you mean with this, then I would be obliged to go on pursuing this line of thought. So I would like you to tell us what is "true belief", a belief which is a belief before knowledge has been established, and then how does justifying work, the justifying that turns true belief into knowledge.

Thanks.