I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

The reason I say that, is because, if we define knowledge as what we are justified or not, we may not be able to distinguish when we are justified and when we are not. What makes distinguish warranted justified belief from none-warranted unjustified belief, is simple, it's honesty. When we are honest to ourselves, we can distinguish between what we truly believe and what we don't. It's not about simply belief, but warranted belief, but to distinguished the warrant and non-warranted, is through honesty.

Knowledge is not a certainty. Certainty is when we are very strong at that perception with honesty and warranted belief.

Certainty is a level of knowledge.  That itself has stages, and the more stronger the power of reason and sight of the heart is, the more we will be certain.


When one honestly assess what what truly believes, that is knowledge.

Still stuck in an obscure backwater part of the 7th century, are we?

(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

The reason I say that, is because, if we define knowledge as what we are justified or not, we may not be able to distinguish when we are justified and when we are not. What makes distinguish warranted justified belief from none-warranted unjustified belief, is simple, it's honesty. When we are honest to ourselves, we can distinguish between what we truly believe and what we don't. It's not about simply belief, but warranted belief, but to distinguished the warrant and non-warranted, is through honesty.

Knowledge is not a certainty. Certainty is when we are very strong at that perception with honesty and warranted belief.

Certainty is a level of knowledge.  That itself has stages, and the more stronger the power of reason and sight of the heart is, the more we will be certain.


When one honestly assess what what truly believes, that is knowledge.

No. You are trying to equate your perception of your own morality, to your own desires.

This is word salad. The biggest problem with this is that an individual can falsely believe and truly believe they are being honest and be dead wrong. The ancient Egyptians were a very successful society for 3,000 years and truly believed in their gods. The were being honest about what they believed to be true at the time, and they were dead wrong.

The only thing that is required in finding facts is objectivity and going where the evidence leads, not where you personally want it to go. That is real honesty. The willingness to correct your position when data shows you that your position needs to be adapted or even scrapped. Everything you said above is a romantic idea not a pragmatic definition of how proper logic works.

Your heart pumps blood, throwing the word "reason" in that sentence is simply what you do to sound logical. None of what you said is the definition of how good logic works. I am sure you honestly believe what you say, but you are wrong.

Who knew.  Allah is a fucking spammer.

(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

No wonder you're so confused.

What we honestly believe is merely what we honestly believe.

To know something we must not only honestly believe it but it must also be true, it must be justifiably true and we must not merely have the knowledge by accident (the Gettier problem).

Justified true belief that one is lucidly aware of=knowledge, IMO.

(March 18, 2017 at 5:11 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

No wonder you're so confused.

What we honestly believe is merely what we honestly believe.

To know something we must not only honestly believe it but it must also be true, it must be justifiably true and we must not merely have the knowledge by accident (the Gettier problem).

Justified true belief that one is lucidly aware of=knowledge, IMO.

If we falsely think we know something and think it's warranted, what distinguishes that from something we believe in the same strength but it is warranted? IF we honestly believe them with same strength, we are doomed practically to never truly know for we cannot distinguish between knowledge and belief.

I am saying when one is honest to oneself, one can distinguish between warranted justified belief and unjustified unwarranted belief.

(March 18, 2017 at 5:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If we falsely think we know something and think it's warranted, what distinguishes that from something we believe in the same strength but it is warranted?

(March 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(March 18, 2017 at 5:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If we falsely think we know something and think it's warranted, what distinguishes that from something we believe in the same strength but it is warranted?

Reality is what it is, the question, is how do you distinguish what really know about it and what you deceived yourself you know about it. I am saying it's honesty to oneself.

But MK... you said knowledge was this:

(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

But we can honestly believe something without having knowledge of anything real. We can honestly believe something and be mistaken. We can honestly believe something and be deluded. Honest belief is not knowledge. Honest belief is a necessary part of the definition but it's an incomplete and insufficent definition because belief also has to be accurate, justified and not merely accurate and justfied by accident (the Gettier problem).

And this statement...

(March 18, 2017 at 5:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I am saying when one is honest to oneself, one can distinguish between warranted justified belief and unjustified unwarranted belief.

...is stating something completely different to this statement:

(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

...because stating that you get to knowledge via being honest with yourself is completely different to stating that the definition of knowledge is being honest with yourself.

(March 18, 2017 at 5:47 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: But MK... you said knowledge was this:

(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

But we can honestly believe something without having knowledge of anything real. We can honestly believe something and be mistaken. We can honestly believe something and be deluded. Honest belief is not knowledge. Honest belief is a necessary part of the definition but it's an incomplete and insufficent definition because belief also has to be accurate, justified and not merely accurate and justfied by accident (the Gettier problem).

And this statement...

(March 18, 2017 at 5:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I am saying when one is honest to oneself, one can distinguish between warranted justified belief and unjustified unwarranted belief.

...is stating something completely different to this statement:

(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.

...because stating that you get to knowledge via being honest with yourself is completely different to stating that the definition of knowledge is being honest with yourself.

I am saying we only honestly believe in things that are warranted.

I argued why. 

The confusion all happens only when we lie to ourselves. It is only then what should be justified and we should be believe and what we shouldn't is one big mess.

The solution to knowledge and distinguishing truth from falsehood obviously requires us to study and reason. What am I saying is that with truthfulness though we won't believe in false things in actuality.

We may think or lean towards false things, but we only believe in what is warranted and justified with truthfulness and we won't convince ourselves of things that are not true but we believe in them simply because we want to.