Philosophy Now Forum

Knowledge is a set of thoughts/patterns that we experience. Thoughts are meaningful. It explains some aspects of reality/patterns that we experience too.

Nah.
Generally we always regard 'knowledge' as 'knowledge' per se without qualification at all.

Knowledge is fundamentally thoughts [a priori or a posteriori] and experiences.
But for these elements to qualify as knowledge, they have to be

• 1. Raised to the level of a belief, not a mere opinion.
  2. justified as true and
  3. qualified/conditioned within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
  

What is a legal fact has to be qualified within the specific legal framework. Example what is a legal fact in the USA [conditioned upon it legal framework and Constitution] may not be a legal fact is another sovereign nation.
What is a scientific fact within the Scientific Framework cannot be a legal fact or other basis of fact, e.g. common sense, economic, IT, medical, mathematics, geometry, social, political etc.

Thus there is no absolute knowledge of fact, but what is 'knowledge' is Justified True Belief and must always be attached to its specific framework and system.

Knowledge pertains to that which is known and which can also be demonstrated either by logic or by empiricism
As you cannot know something if you believe it but cannot demonstrate it for that is just belief and nothing else

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:45 am Nah.
Generally we always regard 'knowledge' as 'knowledge' per se without qualification at all.

Knowledge is fundamentally thoughts [a priori or a posteriori] and experiences.
But for these elements to qualify as knowledge, they have to be

• 1. Raised to the level of a belief, not a mere opinion.
  2. justified as true and
  3. qualified/conditioned within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
  

What is a legal fact has to be qualified within the specific legal framework. Example what is a legal fact in the USA [conditioned upon it legal framework and Constitution] may not be a legal fact is another sovereign nation.
What is a scientific fact within the Scientific Framework cannot be a legal fact or other basis of fact, e.g. common sense, economic, IT, medical, mathematics, geometry, social, political etc.

Thus there is no absolute knowledge of fact, but what is 'knowledge' is Justified True Belief and must always be attached to its specific framework and system.

We believe when our state of knowledge is not certain. Truth is a sort of knowledge that we are certain about it.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:30 am Knowledge pertains to that which is known and which can also be demonstrated either by logic or by empiricism
As you cannot know something if you believe it but cannot demonstrate it for that is just belief and nothing else

True.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:45 am Nah.
Generally we always regard 'knowledge' as 'knowledge' per se without qualification at all.

Knowledge is fundamentally thoughts [a priori or a posteriori] and experiences.
But for these elements to qualify as knowledge, they have to be

• 1. Raised to the level of a belief, not a mere opinion.
  2. justified as true and
  3. qualified/conditioned within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
  

What is a legal fact has to be qualified within the specific legal framework. Example what is a legal fact in the USA [conditioned upon it legal framework and Constitution] may not be a legal fact is another sovereign nation.
What is a scientific fact within the Scientific Framework cannot be a legal fact or other basis of fact, e.g. common sense, economic, IT, medical, mathematics, geometry, social, political etc.

Thus there is no absolute knowledge of fact, but what is 'knowledge' is Justified True Belief and must always be attached to its specific framework and system.

We believe when our state of knowledge is not certain.

That is an oxymoron, a state of knowledge can never be a belief that is uncertain.
A person has a belief when what he claimed is justified personally with some degree of conviction.
A theist is convinced with his personal justification, i.e. a belief God exists as real.

Einstein had a belief when he had personally proven his hypothesis E=MC2 is true.
Einstein's belief is only considered as knowledge when his hypothesis was tested, verified and justified by his Scientific peers in accordance to the requirements of the Scientific Methods.

The theists' belief, God exists as real cannot be knowledge since there is no credible basis and framework for it to be verified, tested repeatedly as true. As such a belief, God exists cannot be knowledge, i.e. justified true belief as qualified to a credible framework and system of knowledge.

Truth is a sort of knowledge that we are certain about it.

Rather, knowledge is truth that is justified in relation to a specific "credible' framework and system of knowledge.
As such what is certain with knowledge is relative to the specified framework and system of knowledge.

The Scientific Framework overall do not claim 100% certainty.
Thus whatever is certain about a scientific theory cannot be 100% certain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:53 am That is an oxymoron, a state of knowledge can never be a belief that is uncertain.

We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it --Claude Shannon

By your criterion (knowledge is certain) knowledge is equivalent to history.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:53 am That is an oxymoron, a state of knowledge can never be a belief that is uncertain.

We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it --Claude Shannon

By your criterion (knowledge is certain) knowledge is equivalent to history.

Where did I ever claim knowledge is certain??

Note I stated above re Science the most credible form of knowledge at present;

• The Scientific Framework overall do not claim 100% certainty.
  Thus whatever is 'certain' about a scientific theory cannot be 100% certain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:53 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:45 am Nah.
Generally we always regard 'knowledge' as 'knowledge' per se without qualification at all.

Knowledge is fundamentally thoughts [a priori or a posteriori] and experiences.
But for these elements to qualify as knowledge, they have to be

• 1. Raised to the level of a belief, not a mere opinion.
  2. justified as true and
  3. qualified/conditioned within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
  

What is a legal fact has to be qualified within the specific legal framework. Example what is a legal fact in the USA [conditioned upon it legal framework and Constitution] may not be a legal fact is another sovereign nation.
What is a scientific fact within the Scientific Framework cannot be a legal fact or other basis of fact, e.g. common sense, economic, IT, medical, mathematics, geometry, social, political etc.

Thus there is no absolute knowledge of fact, but what is 'knowledge' is Justified True Belief and must always be attached to its specific framework and system.

We believe when our state of knowledge is not certain.

That is an oxymoron, a state of knowledge can never be a belief that is uncertain.
A person has a belief when what he claimed is justified personally with some degree of conviction.
A theist is convinced with his personal justification, i.e. a belief God exists as real.

Einstein had a belief when he had personally proven his hypothesis E=MC2 is true.
Einstein's belief is only considered as knowledge when his hypothesis was tested, verified and justified by his Scientific peers in accordance to the requirements of the Scientific Methods.

The theists' belief, God exists as real cannot be knowledge since there is no credible basis and framework for it to be verified, tested repeatedly as true. As such a belief, God exists cannot be knowledge, i.e. justified true belief as qualified to a credible framework and system of knowledge.

Knowledge can be uncertain given my definition of knowledge (a set of thoughts). Thoughts only need to be meaningful. Some thought can be justified empirically or through logic or both (consistent theory) and some cannot. What is justified is called truth otherwise it is a belief.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:53 am

Truth is a sort of knowledge that we are certain about it.

Rather, knowledge is truth that is justified in relation to a specific "credible' framework and system of knowledge.
As such what is certain with knowledge is relative to the specified framework and system of knowledge.

The Scientific Framework overall do not claim 100% certainty.
Thus whatever is certain about a scientific theory cannot be 100% certain.

No. The truth as it is stated is a sort of knowledge that is certain. Knowledge is either certain or uncertain. There is no other option. We are dealing with the truth in the first case and belief in the second case.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:15 am Where did I ever claim knowledge is certain??

Right here:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:53 am That is an oxymoron, a state of knowledge can never be a belief that is uncertain.

You are literally saying: If it's uncertain then it's not knowledge.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:15 am Where did I ever claim knowledge is certain??

Right here:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:53 am That is an oxymoron, a state of knowledge can never be a belief that is uncertain.

You are literally saying: If it's uncertain then it's not knowledge.

You are too literal and did not read the explanations that followed;

The sequence is always that beliefs need to be justified to be true, then it only becomes 'knowledge' [JTB] after that.

Knowledge is uncertain [never 100% certain] but beliefs can be "certain" as justified within a specific framework of knowledge.
Example, Einstein was certain of his beliefs re E=MC2, but as a scientific knowledge it cannot be 100% certain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:49 am Knowledge is uncertain [never 100% certain]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:53 am a state of knowledge can never be a belief that is uncertain.

I dunno how to interpret this.

Knowledge is uncertain. (A = C)
Belief is uncertain. (B = C)

Therefore (by transitivity) knowledge is Belief. (A = B)

Both Knowledge and Belief are uncertain!

A = B = C

Your problem is one of demarcation.

Where does "uncertainty" end?
Where does "certainty" begin?

Anything less than 100% certainty is uncertainty.

For me "certainty" begins at the point that I am willing to act on my beliefs/knowledge.

Certainty is action.
Uncertainty is inaction.

All of my knowledge is uncertain.
My actions are certain.

if Wile E Coyote had knowledge, the anvil bit wouldn't work...

no ledge...

nevermind, the anvil bit doesn't work anyway

-Imp

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:13 am Knowledge is a set of thoughts/patterns that we experience. Thoughts are meaningful. It explains some aspects of reality/patterns that we experience too.

No, thoughts are not knowledge. See:

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:30 am ...you cannot know something if you believe it but cannot demonstrate it for that is just belief and nothing else

And even your own:

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:28 am We believe when our state of knowledge is not certain. Truth is a sort of knowledge that we are certain about it.

is much closer. Knowledge serves towards the negation of belief-based uncertainty.

Knowledge = certainty; no degree(s) of uncertainty (as in: certainly not to be believed)
Belief = one or more degrees of relative uncertainty

If you throw in the operators 'all' and 'not' (+/-) as related to current discussions regarding Boolean logic and true/false reductions,
{to know all (thus) not to believe} tends towards any possible all-knowing state, theist/atheist-invariant, whereas
{to believe all (thus) not to know} captures any/all belief-based ignorances lacking knowledge which would otherwise negate.
This bi-directional inversive symmetry captures the only two extremes which can capture the orientation of any/all beings:
those who are belief-oriented, and those who are knowledge-oriented. Only one tends towards all-knowing.

Apply to "believer vs. unbeliever" to understand why the world is the way it is.