Knowledge, belief, and honesty.

[masterofpuppets]

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.

That's why it's in our best interests to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Technically you are correct; in the most extreme sense we cannot really demonstrate to know anything to be true as we cannot prove that we are not brains in vats. However, it's also in our best interest to presuppose certain absolutes (such as the logical absolutes) and facts (such as that things really exist outside your own perception) if we want to be able to even know anything. This is why knowledge should be based on evidence and logical arguments, and certain presuppositions that do not violate Occam'z Razor, because it is a practical necessity.

Also, it seems like you are separating knowledge and belief into two mutually exclusive categories, which is incorrect. You cannot know anything without first believing it. Belief is the state of being convinced that something is true. Knowledge is that plus it being actually true, having a good reason to believe it (justification), and not merely knowing it by accident as was pointed out earlier.