punished for beliefs in public school?

[Curious George]

YOU claimed a fact is belief.

Start substantiating your claims

Notice how "knowledge" is in the larger belief circle in the picture. I am not sure how much more clear I can make this.

 

[Curious George]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

The definition of knowledge is a matter of ongoing debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology.

Yes ongoing debate, but everyone agrees that it is some form of belief. Everyone! Except you. You can try to list sources, but I haven't even heard you use reason to defend your view. How is "knowledge that" or propositional knowledge not a type of belief.

 

[Curious George]

Your admitting to moving goal post

No, I am saying adept belief is a form of belief.

 

[Curious George]

Knowledge includes beliefs but these must be justified and true. Beliefs in general as assumed to be true. The knowledge of life near the south and north poles is justified and true due to evidence Another example would be the geocentric model. It was justified with math but was not true. Hence why knowledge is different from beliefs since it has criteria to meet while many beliefs do not have any criteria.

This is ridiculous, you are essentially saying an elephant is not a mammal, because elephants have more specific criteria than just mammal.

It is absurd.

 

[Curious George]

No you did not.

Its why you still don't have any credible sources.

And you never stated form of belief, its just more of you ducking and dodging after stepping in it with unsubstantiated claims. You clearly stated a fact is belief and your factually wrong.

No, you are wrong. You would like me to be moving the goal posts because your ego doesn't want to accept how wrong you are.

So touting the difference between knowledge and belief is certainly important for later discussion, but it is not wrong to call facts beliefs as well. Facts are beliefs. They are simply a set of beliefs which are "proven."

Now a fact such as 1+1=2 is proven. We can call this belief a fact because it is proven, but it is still a belief. A specific kind of belief, a proven belief.

Yep, always claiming a type of belief. It would be convenient, now that you have looked up the definition. But I have not moved any goal posts.

 

[Shad]

This is ridiculous, you are essentially saying an elephant is not a mammal, because elephants have more specific criteria than just mammal.

It is absurd.

You misunderstood me. Knowledge has to be believed in otherwise it is not knowledge. Someone has to retain it within their mind. Knowledge requires the mind. However knowledge has a higher criteria than the average belief has. Look at my geocentric example. It was believed to be knowledge but was false thus was never knowledge to begin with regardless of what people called it. It was a belief which was not true. Knowledge can not be false while a belief can. Many normal beliefs lack justification and/or are false. The belief that aliens exist on some distance planet is a belief not knowledge. The belief in God is not knowledge. Mars is a planet is knowledge. Jupiter has many moons is knowledge. All swans are white is a belief proven false. This is how knowledge is separate from the average belief.

 

[Curious George]

You misunderstood me. Knowledge has to be believed in otherwise it is not knowledge. Someone has to retain it within their mind. Knowledge requires the mind. However knowledge has a higher criteria than the average belief has. Look at my geocentric example. It was believed to be knowledge but was false thus was never knowledge to begin with regardless of what people called it. It was a belief which was not true. Knowledge can not be false while a belief can. Many normal beliefs lack justification and/or are false. The belief that aliens exist on some distance planet is a belief not knowledge. The belief in God is not knowledge. Mars is a planet is knowledge. Jupiter has many moons is knowledge. All swans are white is a belief proven false. This is how knowledge is separate from the average belief.

Separate from the average belief, but still belief is my point. The distinction only matters when it matters that these beliefs that constitute knowledge are put into other assertions. When we evaluate the knowledge itself, we must evaluate it as belief otherwise we have no ability to say it is knowledge. We do not get to say "no, he doesn't believe God doesn't exist, because he knows God doesn't exist"

If you know something than it must be a belief. A true belief, yes. A justified or well justified belief sure, a proven belief, fine. An adept or apt belief, ok that can work too. But it is a belief.

So, if someone says they do not believe in God, we cannot find any truth in the rationalization that this person doesn't believe because they know and somehow, despite all definition of knowledge being some form of belief or another, that knowing is not a belief.

We can say that knowledge is differentiated from belief. Especially, when we are trying to emphasize using proven facts as opposed to personal thoughts, but when we examine knowledge it is belief.

 

[outhouse]

Notice how "knowledge" is in the larger belief circle in the picture. I am not sure how much more clear I can make this.

You posted one opinion, which is not the "end all" to said definition


Belief is not knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

Yep, always claiming a type of belief.

Non sequitur.

Red is a color. That doesn't make all colors red George.

 

[outhouse]

They are simply a set of beliefs which are "proven."

So you admit what was once a belief, no longer is a belief once it reaches factual status as it is now knowledge and no longer a belief.

Beliefs factually can change into knowledge. Your WHOLE point amounts to every conscious thought is a belief and your wrong.

And just because some people can believe knowledge because they don't know it is knowledge, does not mean by any credible manner all knowledge is a belief.

Facts are not beliefs, because some people don't accept them and choose to believe. 2 is not a belief when adding 1 + 1 it is factual knowledge unless your 2 years old and are ignorant to all life.

 

[outhouse]

We do not get to say "no, he doesn't believe God doesn't exist, because he knows God doesn't exist"

We don't have to say anything because the concept has never been proven to exist. Scientifically no gods exist outside mythology because there is no evidence.

But I actually can state I know gods don't exist because i have the education to see and know exactly how man created and defined the concepts over thousands of years.

Now George a child can say he has knowledge no god exist because he has never seen any evidence to suggest any deity does exist, he knows no god exist because none exist in his life. That is knowledge to him not a belief. Now if he had any doubts at all and second guessed his knowledge we might be able to say he does have beliefs. But at this time we don't know enough one way or the other due to lack of details in the childs mind.

 

[Shad]

Separate from the average belief, but still belief is my point. The distinction only matters when it matters that these beliefs that constitute knowledge are put into other assertions. When we evaluate the knowledge itself, we must evaluate it as belief otherwise we have no ability to say it is knowledge. We do not get to say "no, he doesn't believe God doesn't exist, because he knows God doesn't exist"

If you know something than it must be a belief. A true belief, yes. A justified or well justified belief sure, a proven belief, fine. An adept or apt belief, ok that can work too. But it is a belief.

So, if someone says they do not believe in God, we cannot find any truth in the rationalization that this person doesn't believe because they know and somehow, despite all definition of knowledge being some form of belief or another, that knowing is not a belief.

We can say that knowledge is differentiated from belief. Especially, when we are trying to emphasize using proven facts as opposed to personal thoughts, but when we examine knowledge it is belief.

A problem with calling knowledge a belief is that it causes issues. For one it ignores tacit knowledge. For example I know how to ride a bike. It is not a belief that I can ride a bike but I know how to ride a bike. This a problem of Plato's justified true belief equal knowledge. Edmund Gettier pointed out similar issues with justification not leading to a truth thus is not knowledge. Popper points out an issue that knowledge itself is impossible thus what we call knowledge is just a belief open to falsification thus can not be true knowledge. Knowledge can not be false but if subject to falsification then we have no real knowledge. There is also the problem of perception and relation raised by Hume, Kant and Russel. There is the problem of fallibility of belief with the infallibility of knowledge.

http://www.philosophy-olympiad.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/168_darbas.pdf
http://fitelson.org/proseminar/gettier.pdf

If knowledge is a belief it is fallible thus not knowledge. Even justification can be wrong and be falsified thus is not reliable for claims of knowledge but only suitable for beliefs. Imagination can trick the mind thus forming a belief which seems justified but is not.

 

[outhouse]

A problem with calling knowledge a belief is that it causes issues. For one it ignores tacit knowledge. For example I know how to ride a bike. It is not a belief that I can ride a bike but I know how to ride a bike. This a problem of Plato's justified true belief equal knowledge. Edmund Gettier pointed out similar issues with justification not leading to a truth thus is not knowledge. Popper points out an issue that knowledge itself is impossible thus what we call knowledge is just a belief open to falsification thus can not be true knowledge. Knowledge can not be false but if subject to falsification then we have no real knowledge. There is also the problem of perception and relation raised by Hume, Kant and Russel. There is the problem of fallibility of belief with the infallibility of knowledge.

http://www.philosophy-olympiad.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/168_darbas.pdf
http://fitelson.org/proseminar/gettier.pdf

If knowledge is a belief it is fallible thus not knowledge. Even justification can be wrong and be falsified thus is not reliable for claims of knowledge but only suitable for beliefs.

Excellent points.

It would be nice if Epistemology was settled in a philosophical discussion.

Now for our use here in a debate setting I find a common dictionary works great to show belief is not knowledge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things.

2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature.

4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.
something that is or may be known; information:
He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.
the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.



Notice how nowhere in any part of the standard definition does it say belief is defined as knowledge?


By the way thank you for your help here.

 

[Shad]

No problem. The common Plato definition is still very appealing and used far more often by most people. I understand why people use it but like I said it becomes a major issue when evaluated in perspective. Look at how many different theist claim knowledge of God. Each different religion has a different view thus claims of knowledge based on experience of God create multiple mutually exclusive claims. Each one has a different perspective, a different or similar justification, different subject/object relations, etc. Each one claims their view is justified true belief thus knowledge. We can waste time evaluating each claim or just come to the realization that justification does not make a belief into knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

A problem with calling knowledge a belief is that it causes issues. For one it ignores tacit knowledge. For example I know how to ride a bike. It is not a belief that I can ride a bike but I know how to ride a bike. This a problem of Plato's justified true belief equal knowledge. Edmund Gettier pointed out similar issues with justification not leading to a truth thus is not knowledge. Popper points out an issue that knowledge itself is impossible thus what we call knowledge is just a belief open to falsification thus can not be true knowledge. Knowledge can not be false but if subject to falsification then we have no real knowledge. There is also the problem of perception and relation raised by Hume, Kant and Russel. There is the problem of fallibility of belief with the infallibility of knowledge.

http://www.philosophy-olympiad.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/168_darbas.pdf
http://fitelson.org/proseminar/gettier.pdf

If knowledge is a belief it is fallible thus not knowledge. Even justification can be wrong and be falsified thus is not reliable for claims of knowledge but only suitable for beliefs. Imagination can trick the mind thus forming a belief which seems justified but is not.

We are discussing propositional knowledge, knowledge that. We are not discussing knowledge how, or knowledge by acquaintance. So, trying to bring in semantic difference that isn't applicable to the type of knowledge in discussion (God exists, or 2+2=4, both of which are propositional knowledge) is an equivocation. I have addressed gettier several times now. Different philosophers have taken different approaches the gettier problems but none try to claim knowledge (propositional) is not a belief.

Well, justified true belief is not fallible either. But it is still belief. Turri's concept of adept belief is not fallible but it is still belief. Saying that all beliefs are fallible is a mistake and begs the question. In theory you would have to show why an infallible belief cannot be a belief.

 

[Curious George]

Non sequitur.

Red is a color. That doesn't make all colors red George.

Yes but it makes all reds colors. Which is what I am saying. All knowledge is belief, but not all beliefs are knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

Excellent points.

It would be nice if Epistemology was settled in a philosophical discussion.

Now for our use here in a debate setting I find a common dictionary works great to show belief is not knowledge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things.

2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature.

4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6.
something that is or may be known; information:
He sought knowledge of her activities.

7.
the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.



Notice how nowhere in any part of the standard definition does it say belief is defined as knowledge?


By the way thank you for your help here.

Non-sequitur

 

[Curious George]

You posted one opinion, which is not the "end all" to said definition


Belief is not knowledge.

Yes it is. If we are discussing propositional knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

So you admit what was once a belief, no longer is a belief once it reaches factual status as it is now knowledge and no longer a belief.

Beliefs factually can change into knowledge. Your WHOLE point amounts to every conscious thought is a belief and your wrong.

And just because some people can believe knowledge because they don't know it is knowledge, does not mean by any credible manner all knowledge is a belief.

Facts are not beliefs, because some people don't accept them and choose to believe. 2 is not a belief when adding 1 + 1 it is factual knowledge unless your 2 years old and are ignorant to all life.

Yes it is a belief, it is a true well justified belief, or a proven belief, but it is still a belief.

 

[Shad]

We are discussing propositional knowledge, knowledge that. We are not discussing knowledge how, or knowledge by acquaintance. So, trying to bring in semantic difference that isn't applicable to the type of knowledge in discussion (God exists, or 2+2=4, both of which are propositional knowledge) is an equivocation. I have addressed gettier several times now. Different philosophers have taken different approaches the gettier problems but none try to claim knowledge (propositional) is not a belief.

Which I addressed by pointing out issues with justification. Gettier addressed this specifically, read my links.

Well, justified true belief is not fallible either.

It is falsifiable and fallible since justifications could and can be wrong. For example say I look into a fish tank and see a gold fish. I can state "I know there is a gold fish in the tank." However say I really saw a rock that looks like a gold fish. This makes my justified belief not knowledge since the justification is false. More so say there is a gold fish behind this rock which I did not see. My statement is above is correct but the justification is for my statement is irrelevant.

But it is still belief. Turri's concept of adept belief is not fallible but it is still belief. Saying that all beliefs are fallible is a mistake and begs the question. In theory you would have to show why an infallible belief cannot be a belief.

Turri's response is irrelevant since it does not address fallibilism. Turri has also failed to validate his own principle of entailment and safety of belief.