punished for beliefs in public school?

[Curious George]

All in all, I am claiming no belief either way, which seems more likely for a child.

Hmm. Why more likely?

 

[outhouse]

Certainly belief can be an assumption. But it is not merely an assumption.

That in no way addresses knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

You not a philosopher, and your having trouble accepting the current definition as written in a dictionary, as you try and pervert the meaning to suit your own personal needs going beyond the definition.

Lol, non sequitur

 

[Curious George]

That in no way addresses knowledge.

in context it did.

 

[Curious George]

If it was not an assumption it would then be called knowledge

But it would still be a belief

 

[outhouse]

in context it did.

Only in your mind.

 

[outhouse]

But it would still be a belief

Only in your mind.

 

[outhouse]

Lol, non sequitur

Sorry it is your self admitted fact.

 

[Curious George]

Only in your mind.

Lol, just because you don't understand does not mean it is only in my mind, rather all you can say is at least in your, outhouse's, mind it did not make sense.

Yet another non sequitur from you. How ironic.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry it is your self admitted fact.

It is my self admitted fact that I am trying to "pervert" the definition. Lol.

It is becoming painfully clear that you don't cannot distinguish between, fact and personal opinion, let alone knowledge and belief.

 

[outhouse]

Look at the definition of knowledge, no where does it imply belief outside philosophical debates, that are factually not settled on the definition you managed to provide


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?

 

[outhouse]

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

http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=knowledge

Function: noun
1 : understanding or skill gained by experience <a knowledge of carpentry>
2 a : the state of being aware of something or of having information b : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge>
3 : something learned and kept in the mind : LEARNING <has a vast knowledge of history>
synonyms KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP mean what is known or can be known by a person or by human beings in general. KNOWLEDGE applies to facts or ideas acquired by study, observation, or experience <gained a knowledge of horses in growing up on a ranch>. LEARNING applies to knowledge gained usually through formal schooling especially at an advanced level <a college professor of great learning>. SCHOLARSHIP suggests the learning of an advanced scholar in a specialized field of study <a history book that shows much scholarship on the part of the author>.

 

[Curious George]

Look at the definition of knowledge, no where does it imply belief outside philosophical debates, that are factually not settled on the definition you managed to provide


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?

Notice in several places where the definition of the word requires a definition of itself. I think I will trust academic sources and logic over your dictionary definition.

You started with sources, realized you were wrong and now in a final desperate attempt are trying to appeal to mass usage for laymen, when we were discussing propositional knowledge.

According to the dictionary, I agree knowledge is not belief (though it might be possible to make an argument that it still is a belief), I certainly understand that the dictionary tries to distinguish the two.

According to logic, reason, and academia...I am right.

Though it is an extreme equivocation to talk about this usage instead of propositional knowledge as defined by epistemology.

 

[outhouse]

Notice how nowhere in any part of the standard definition does it say belief is defined as knowledge?http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=knowledge

Function: noun1: understanding or skill gained by experience <a knowledge of carpentry>2 a: the state of being aware of something or of having information b: the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge>3: something learned and kept in the mind : LEARNING <has a vast knowledge of history>synonymsKNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP mean what is known or can be known by a person or by human beings in general. KNOWLEDGE applies to facts or ideas acquired by study, observation, or experience <gained a knowledge of horses in growing up on a ranch>. LEARNING applies to knowledge gained usually through formal schooling especially at an advanced level <a college professor of great learning>. SCHOLARSHIP suggests the learning of an advanced scholar in a specialized field of study <a history book that shows much scholarship on the part of the author>.

 

[outhouse]

According to logic, reason, and academia...I am right.

No your not.

No where have you provided any credible source stating the philosophical debate on definition has been settled in your favor.

ALL CREDIBLE sources, state it is not a settled philosophical definition.


You still have not provided any credible source that a fact is belief as well

wiki

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

 

[Curious George]

No your not.

Yes, huh! Lol

No where have you provided any credible source stating the philosophical debate on definition has been settled in your favor.

no but I have provided sources, including one that stated "most theories" treat knowledge as a "species of belief." Sounds pretty settled to me. You, on the other hand, have not provided any credible sources contradicting me. If such exist, they are obscure. The reason for this is that the challenges to knowledge as true justified belief, did not challenge whether knowledge was belief, but whether any true justified belief was always knowledge.

ALL CREDIBLE sources, state it is not a settled philosophical definition.

But if you understand what is unsettled it is not the belief part. This is like saying that it is unsettled whether some new species belongs to this category of mammals or that category of mammals, so therefore we cannot say the new species is a mammal.

The belief part is settled.

You still have not provided any credible source that a fact is belief as well

This is a fair critique. This is not settled.

 

[Shad]

Yes, in this instance someone claiming to know, just believes, correct?

No, Popper is pointing out that what we call knowledge is not really knowledge at all but merely beliefs we are confident in. Scientific knowledge becomes scientific beliefs regardless of how well founded a theory is. Everything we claim to have knowledge of is falsifiable due to the number of filters we are required to use. Perception, relational, tools, etc are all open to being falsified.

Now forgive but this post might be hard to follow as it is likely to be all over the map and it is somewhat of a tangent. If it makes no sense to you, I understand.

If you break up your post to address specific points I can follow along no problem.

Our world is full of shapes, some of these shapes are circles. But, there are no perfect circles. This however does not mean that a perfect circle existing in some alternate reality(I.e. the forms) or even in our conception of such is possible is not a shape.

The same is true for knowledge. While it may be the case that knowledge cannot exist as you have expressed above here, a knowledge -that existing in another reality or even just in conception entails belief.

However, if it is the case where we cannot fathom knowledge and still have it known by acquaintance or perception, such that we only know a potential knowledge (since knowledge that cannot exist without then claiming some greater plane such as the forms) even potential knowledge-that necessitates belief.

This is what Popper is getting at. We have definitions which create standards and criteria we can not meet. So we accept the definition is flawed, we accept we can never meet the definitions requirement or we redefine the words used.

Belief is just taking something to be the case or acceptance of its truth. Thus, knowledge requires belief.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/



(See also, section 2.6 in same source which notes:

"The traditional analysis of knowledge, brought into contemporary discussion (and famously criticized) by Gettier (1963), takes knowledge to be a species of belief—specifically, justified true belief. Most contemporary treatments of knowledge are modifications or qualifications of the traditional analysis and consequently also treat knowledge as a species of belief)."

Which is just repeating what Gettier refuted. So regardless of what people use to think their ideas are wrong. Read

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnoJusTruBel

Ahh I see what you meant now thank you.

No problem. At times it is hard to communicate some of these ideas using only a few lines without an idea of what everyone's level of knowledg, /pun, is on.

But that is fine I am not married to adept belief, I just consider it as one of the Many possibilities accounting for gettier problems (the conclusion from which is being used to wrongly assert that knowledge is not belief).

Go read Turri's latest works, I think its from 2012. It does not rely on adeptness as heavily. I will try to find the paper when I can.

Regarding Turri, we would just need to add consistent to the definition. This would remove luck and challenge safety. But I think turri responded to this already to barn with baby or something like that. Basically, the idea of limiting knowledge to safe is not necessary. We consider achievement valid even when luck plays a part of that achievement. Requiring the exclusion of luck would be tantamount to excluding knowledge because of the strictness.

This is the major problem Turri, Gettier and others are attempting to address. The justified true belief to knowledge model is flawed. This renders the common Plato definition of knowledge as problematic. So rather than propose a model based on the definition of knowledge as it is newer models are redefining knowledge from the model up.

All of this, while interesting, doesn't change the fact that knowledge must be belief, and no scholar, of whom I am aware, tries to say that knowledge is not a form of belief.

My bike and goldfish examples show that belief does not lead to knowledge nor is it required. The belief criteria is the major issue with the definition of knowledge and has been for years. The issue is many scholars still use Plato's definition which is outdated.

 

[Curious George]

No, Popper is pointing out that what we call knowledge is not really knowledge at all but merely beliefs we are confident in. Scientific knowledge becomes scientific beliefs regardless of how well founded a theory is. Everything we claim to have knowledge of is falsifiable due to the number of filters we are required to use. Perception, relational, tools, etc are all open to being falsified.



If you break up your post to address specific points I can follow along no problem.



This is what Popper is getting at. We have definitions which create standards and criteria we can not meet. So we accept the definition is flawed, we accept we can never meet the definitions requirement or we redefine the words used.




Which is just repeating what Gettier refuted. So regardless of what people use to think their ideas are wrong. Read

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnoJusTruBel




No problem. At times it is hard to communicate some of these ideas using only a few lines without an idea of what everyone's level of knowledg, /pun, is on.



Go read Turri's latest works, I think its from 2012. It does not rely on adeptness as heavily. I will try to find the paper when I can.



This is the major problem Turri, Gettier and others are attempting to address. The justified true belief to knowledge model is flawed. This renders the common Plato definition of knowledge as problematic. So rather than propose a model based on the definition of knowledge as it is newer models are redefining knowledge from the model up.



My bike and goldfish examples show that belief does not lead to knowledge nor is it required. The belief criteria is the major issue with the definition of knowledge and has been for years. The issue is many scholars still use Plato's definition which is outdated.

Your bicycle is an equivocation. You are talking about a different type of knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

No, Popper is pointing out that what we call knowledge is not really knowledge at all but merely beliefs we are confident in. Scientific knowledge becomes scientific beliefs regardless of how well founded a theory is. Everything we claim to have knowledge of is falsifiable due to the number of filters we are required to use. Perception, relational, tools, etc are all open to being falsified.


.
.

Lol that is exactly what my question was meant to convey. So perhaps that is a yes?

 

[Curious George]

Which is just repeating what Gettier refuted. So regardless of what people use to think their ideas are wrong. Read

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnoJusTruBel.

Thank you, for this. I think this helps me out. Especially with the note of the "serious" belief criteria challenge. Although, I think the basis of it is garbage, I at least understand what people are saying when trying to divorce the belief condition from knowledge.

However, what you quoted is not repeating what gettier asserted. Gettier showed that it is possible to have justified true belief that is not knowledge. Consequently, people have tried to account for these gettier problems. Most, now, while accounting for those problems still treat knowledge as a "species" of belief.