I’m not interested in what the dictionary says or a textbook definition I’m interested in your personal distinction between the two ideas. How do you decide to put an idea in one category versus the other? I’m not interested in the abstract concepts like ‘objective truth’ I want to know how it works in real life for you.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    12 hours ago

    That’s a pretty simple distinction, but you’ve asked for us to define abstract concepts without using definitions or abstract concepts. So let’s just say, knowledge is what you know and beliefs are what you believe. A belief implies some level of doubt, while knowledge is just the information you have in your head. There is a lot of overlap. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, because I understand how the earth rotates and orbits the sun. I believe it will happen because I understand physics and observable phenomena. Put it another way, it is a high-confidence belief based on the knowledge obtained through observation and study. Some beliefs are based on nothing more than hope, and some knowledge is beyond any doubt. I believe the Phillies can win the World Series, but I know our bullpen pitches cantaloupes and our hitters are streaky as shit.

    • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Your last example reminds me of someone editing Wikipedia to list Ronnie O’Sullivan as the winner of the World Open, about 20 minutes before the final match finished.

      They were right, and anyone would agree that it was all-but-certain, but it hadn’t actually happened yet.

    • an_onanist@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      What if you should have some doubt (belief) but due to ignorance or hubris do not and so you elevate a concept to ‘knowledge’ that should not rightfully be there? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m genuinely curious about that gray area of misplaced confidence.

      • boatswain@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        What you’re asking about there seems like it’s really: “Is something being knowledge vs belief subjective or objective?”

        The answer, just like for “is cereal soup?”, is that it’s all semantics. It’s not like there’s some Authority who’s created the Platonic Form of Knowledge that Beliefs cannot partake of, and there’s a clear delineation between Knowledge and Belief. We’re just using these weird shapes, sounds, hand gestures, or whatever else to try to do telepathy and get our thoughts into someone else’s head. Like all semantic questions, what this comes down to is: have you chosen the right word to convey your thought? If people seem to not be getting it, try the other one.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        That’s a fair question, but we’re in danger of conflating two different concepts. Knowledge is the information, and belief is the action. It’s a little bit like having money vs spending money. You can have money, you can spend money, and you can have spending money, and you can spend money you don’t have. These are all slightly different concepts despite using the same words.

        When you think you know something, but you are mistaken, we call that a “belief” even though you did not doubt it. You believe you know something without a doubt, but you are wrong. You do not know, and you should doubt your belief. But you would never describe it as a belief, because you do not believe you do not know for certain.

    • hddsx
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m confused. You don’t know that the sun will rise tomorrow - you believe it will. Science is our best guess at how the universe around us works. Geocentric was how we believed the universe worked until that theory was proven to be wrong.

      You know the current theory, and based on that knowledge you can believe it will rise. There could be some phenomenon that will turn the sun dark for 7 days that is not part of the current model. It’s unlikely, but possible.

      Knowledge is the understanding of that which will not change. Yes, you can modify the theory tomorrow but it will not be the same theory as today. That’s why it’s knowable

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Anything is “possible”. Forecasts of the future can’t be 100%. But not everything is plausible. If you round to 100 significant figures, the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is 100%. You’ll never get to true 100%, past, present, or future. Even after watching something with your own eyes and watching the video documentation 100 times over. It’s “possible” someone faked the video, and eyewitness testimony is known to be incredibly bad evidence for a reason.

        Knowledge is strongly backed by evidence. Belief ranges from “the evidence is inconclusive/not strong enough/doesn’t exist” to “the evidence can’t exist”.