Peanut Gallery Thread for Explain This #1: Belief vs. Knowledge

[DLJ]

Here's a Peanut Gallery thread to discuss answers posted in the corresponding "Explain This" thread:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-52870.html

DLJ, you have the right idea when it comes to style and substance. I personally haven't given you kudos because I honestly have a hard time really understanding the post. I understand things here and there, but need to read it again at a later time for better understanding.

Also, from what I have seen, Boru is the only one so far who has directly addressed every part of the question (including the "sun rising tomorrow part"), and I wish more people not only address every part of the question but come up with illustrative examples.

I say spice things up, be creative, use your imagination. Pictures and diagrams will do wonders and will probably increase the odds of a getting a kudos (I think).

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for this thread.

Lemme know if there's anything you don't know believe understand after your re-read.

So to address the missing part (because I can't edit the original):

...
What is the difference between belief and knowledge? Does one say they know the sun will rise tomorrow, or can they only reasonably say they believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Is there even a difference? I find this a little confusing. Please explain.

Leaving aside the reality that the sun does not rise at all... the earth rotates, but you knew that...

Using the DIKW diagram (the one with the four circles) one can say that one 'knows' that the sun will rise tomorrow because of inductive reasoning.  It is "actionable information" (knowledge) and will be assumed to be the case unless or until new data/information demonstrates otherwise.

We also know that, based on maffs and fisics and stuff, that the sun will one day die but...



So we also know that one tomorrow the sun will not rise.

Is it also a belief?
As I mentioned, 'belief' (or beliefs) don't feature in Information Modelling (or information systems) so the best analogy I have for beliefs is that they are a 'baseline' (which is technically an authorised version of something) that collectively form our ethical systems (I'm talking about the cognitive level rather than anything to do with e.g. homeostasis) stored in memory.  

Imagine the DIKW diagram with a bucket next to it into which the data, information and knowledge is poured with the word 'authorised' stamped on the bucket.

'Authorised' rather than 'true'.  'True' is a philosophical concept rather than a scientific concept.  I deliberately avoided using the word 'true' and anyone who did needs to chuck in a definition for it.

I go with the Pragmatists (I think it was them, not sure) by defining 'true' as "A label given to propositions in accordance with an epistemology."  Which means that if a theist says "It's true for me", I'm not going to argue with their belief that they really do think it's true, but I'll be happy to shit on their epistemology.

Thus, one can also say that is it a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow (as part of one's baseline of (collected, sorted, analysed) knowledge (and data and information)).

The problem with beliefs, though, is the 'wisdom' part.  Wisdom could come from 'folk psychology', folk-lore, myths etc. if unsupported by Data, Information and Knowledge.  Thus one can make a good decision (i.e. useful decision) based on poor reasoning or a bad decision... who knows?  They don't because they lack the knowledge.

The baseline (beliefs) is formed by knowledge and, through a feed-back loop, becomes a filter through which new information is sorted, analysed etc.; the baseline forms the basis of our ethics and this explains why some people have shitty ethics.  

And I can't resist (sorry) adding:

...
The grass is green. 2+2=4. Etc.
...

Grass is not always green and 2+2 does not always =4.