Knowledge, belief, and honesty.

[LastPoet]

Sense, you are not making. /yoda

[Whateverist]

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.

That's his point. If he honestly desires god to exist then he has knowledge that god exists. (It just isn't certain knowledge anymore.)

[Minimalist]

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.

Easy question.  If it comes out of the fucking koran or any other holy horseshit it's fake.

[Whateverist]

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.

I have to question that.  I think one can be earnest and dead wrong.  (Your's being a case in point.)

---

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 earnestness aside, one can be perfectly honest with oneself and still come up short.  There doesn't have to be a solution to the dilemma, and there isn't.  Knowledge is a concept for which our wiring is ill equipped to determine.  Just got to soldier on and give up grand proofs based on eliminating alternatives.  It won't work.

[Ravenshire]

So, if I honestly believe there are little green men on Mars fucking with our probes to hide their highly technological civilization would that be truth in your world view, Mystic?

[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.

[Cyberman]

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.

It would also be demonstrable, at least to a certain extent. I could say I believe Miss Anne Other loves me and I might be justified in that, but I couldn't say with any safety that I know it unless she gave me some indication that she does in fact love me. The interesting bit is she could be lying to me right down the line and my perception would still be justified.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

But simply because you honestly, truly, believe something does not mean that that particular something is true in any meaningful sense. It may indeed be knowledge, but so what? False knowledge is still false, and not terribly utilitarian.

I'll give you an example. Romans, particularly during the Regal and Republican periods, didn't believe in their gods - they knew their gods existed, in much the same way that you or I know that the sink is clogged or that your shoes are too tight. To them, Jove and Juno and Mars and all the rest were no less real than the local fishmonger or the street you had to walk to get to him. The ritual practices Romans engaged in weren't so much to appease the gods as they were a fact of life (it has been said, with significant justification, that the Roman view of religion wasn't so much about believing as it was about doing).

But regardless of the honesty, sincerity, and firm knowledge the Romans had about their gods, Jupiter still never existed.

I hope you see the distinction.

Boru

[Brian37]

Sense, you are not making. /yoda

Weird Al " This long term contract I had to sign said I'll be making these movies till the end of time with my YODA Y-O-D-A YO YO YO YO YODA......"

[Edwardo Piet]

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

Well that's simply false.