Differences Between Knowing and Believing

My thoughts on the matter, its been bugging me since I did A CAE course on it in the 80’s

Believing is imaginary and is confined to the self, confined to the individual, its very difficult to describe abstract images and concepts to other people.

Knowing is accepting reality that can be proven to other people, it has evidence and existence that can be validated to others.

¿ref

if you define belief to be something involving lesser certainty than a known, use those words that way, then that’s what they do, point to less or more certainty, you can of course assign a very high level of certainty to a known, and I might add you can be wrong in assigning that certainty, in fact by mis-assigning a high level of certainty you can be more wrong, even wronger

the word belief tends to often get used in a pejorative sense, possibly because it’s associated with religion, religious belief, but the reality is belief sways everyone. In a moment i’m going to have another sip out of my coffee cup to the right of me, I believe the coffee cup is still there, and that it still has something drinkable in it, I won’t know there’s any coffee left in the cup until I have a look in the cup, and it maybe too cold, lost the required warmness, or heat, by the time I finish writing this paragraph

turns out is was warm enough, and there is still coffee in the cup, I tested it, had a sip

often belief means the sway of an idea or notion, expectations often have belief about them, they don’t need be worded, you know I expect oranges (the fruit) to be orange in color, I believe all oranges are orange, though I don’t know absolutely all are, people may have genetically manipulated them, there maybe green oranges, or oneday I may come across a painted orange, somebody could spray one with green paint. It’d still be an orange, the fruit, it wouldn’t be orange to look at, on the outside

things get more interesting of beliefs about others beliefs, that sort of thing, if you search orders of intentionality it’ll turn up something to do with that, I believe you have a desire to know more about that

This bugs me as well, but for a different reason.

“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence.

Unfortunately theists have hijacked the word to mean “accept as absolute and unquestionable truth, on the basis of faith in what you are told by some figure of authority”, and many people seem to have gone along with that, but there is nothing in the dictionary definition to suggest such a limited meaning.

The Rev Dodgson said:

This bugs me as well, but for a different reason.

“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence.

Unfortunately theists have hijacked the word to mean “accept as absolute and unquestionable truth, on the basis of faith in what you are told by some figure of authority”, and many people seem to have gone along with that, but there is nothing in the dictionary definition to suggest such a limited meaning.

aren’t you similarly under the sway of belief, swayed by denial, Godlessness, Master Dodgson

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This bugs me as well, but for a different reason.

“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence.

Unfortunately theists have hijacked the word to mean “accept as absolute and unquestionable truth, on the basis of faith in what you are told by some figure of authority”, and many people seem to have gone along with that, but there is nothing in the dictionary definition to suggest such a limited meaning.

aren’t you similarly under the sway of belief, swayed by denial, Godlessness, Master Dodgson

roughbarked said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This bugs me as well, but for a different reason.

“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence.

Unfortunately theists have hijacked the word to mean “accept as absolute and unquestionable truth, on the basis of faith in what you are told by some figure of authority”, and many people seem to have gone along with that, but there is nothing in the dictionary definition to suggest such a limited meaning.

aren’t you similarly under the sway of belief, swayed by denial, Godlessness, Master Dodgson

chuckle

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

This bugs me as well, but for a different reason.

“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence.

Unfortunately theists have hijacked the word to mean “accept as absolute and unquestionable truth, on the basis of faith in what you are told by some figure of authority”, and many people seem to have gone along with that, but there is nothing in the dictionary definition to suggest such a limited meaning.

aren’t you similarly under the sway of belief, swayed by denial, Godlessness, Master Dodgson

No, in the context I am talking about, gods have nothing to do with it.

>“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence

I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head

I guess put simply a belief could be said to be a commitment

transition said:

>“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence

I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head

I guess put simply a belief could be said to be a commitment

First bit – that’s what I said.

Stuff about commitments – commitments have nothing to do with it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence

I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head

I guess put simply a belief could be said to be a commitment

First bit – that’s what I said.

Stuff about commitments – commitments have nothing to do with it.

yeah I guess not, there’s no force of committed brain activity to anything

transition said:

>“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence

I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head

I guess put simply a belief could be said to be a commitment

Belief

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence

I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head

I guess put simply a belief could be said to be a commitment

First bit – that’s what I said.

Stuff about commitments – commitments have nothing to do with it.

yeah I guess not, there’s no force of committed brain activity to anything

so maybe consider committed to be pledged or bound to a certain course or policy; dedicated, and of the more unworded world of mechanisms and systems of, that could just be a bunch of neurons forming a structure that inclines some behavior

Ian said:

transition said:

>“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence

I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head

I guess put simply a belief could be said to be a commitment

Belief

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

On the other hand:

Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
belief in the validity of scientific statements

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>“Believing” just means accepting something to be true, based on the available evidence

I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head

I guess put simply a belief could be said to be a commitment

First bit – that’s what I said.

Stuff about commitments – commitments have nothing to do with it.

yeah I guess not, there’s no force of committed brain activity to anything

I don’t know what you mean by that, so I don’t know if there is or there isn’t, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do what the word “believe” means.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

First bit – that’s what I said.

Stuff about commitments – commitments have nothing to do with it.

yeah I guess not, there’s no force of committed brain activity to anything

I don’t know what you mean by that, so I don’t know if there is or there isn’t, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do what the word “believe” means.

but I think you did understand when you accepted the first paragraph, agreed with it, in fact you went so far as to say it was what you said, which doubt it was, but whatever

the paragraph went as follows..to quote myself exactly, minus the italics

“I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head”

so I dunno, perhaps there’s a revelation in that use of commitment above, you tell me

“

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

yeah I guess not, there’s no force of committed brain activity to anything

I don’t know what you mean by that, so I don’t know if there is or there isn’t, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do what the word “believe” means.

but I think you did understand when you accepted the first paragraph, agreed with it, in fact you went so far as to say it was what you said, which doubt it was, but whatever

the paragraph went as follows..to quote myself exactly, minus the italics

“I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head”

so I dunno, perhaps there’s a revelation in that use of commitment above, you tell me

“

The bit I agreed with excluded the bit about commitment.

What I was agreeing with was that a belief is not “an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe”.

It’s just what you think is probably true at the time, based on any evidence you choose to take into consideration, that’s all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what you mean by that, so I don’t know if there is or there isn’t, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do what the word “believe” means.

but I think you did understand when you accepted the first paragraph, agreed with it, in fact you went so far as to say it was what you said, which doubt it was, but whatever

the paragraph went as follows..to quote myself exactly, minus the italics

“I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head”

so I dunno, perhaps there’s a revelation in that use of commitment above, you tell me

“

The bit I agreed with excluded the bit about commitment.

What I was agreeing with was that a belief is not “an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe”.

It’s just what you think is probably true at the time, based on any evidence you choose to take into consideration, that’s all.

So on some planets children might not be the future

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

but I think you did understand when you accepted the first paragraph, agreed with it, in fact you went so far as to say it was what you said, which doubt it was, but whatever

the paragraph went as follows..to quote myself exactly, minus the italics

“I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head”

so I dunno, perhaps there’s a revelation in that use of commitment above, you tell me

“

The bit I agreed with excluded the bit about commitment.

What I was agreeing with was that a belief is not “an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe”.

It’s just what you think is probably true at the time, based on any evidence you choose to take into consideration, that’s all.

So on some planets children might not be the future

I’m not sure what that means, but there seem to be lots of planets where there are no children, so I guess it is most likely true that there are planets where children are not the future, whatever it means.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

but I think you did understand when you accepted the first paragraph, agreed with it, in fact you went so far as to say it was what you said, which doubt it was, but whatever

the paragraph went as follows..to quote myself exactly, minus the italics

“I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head”

so I dunno, perhaps there’s a revelation in that use of commitment above, you tell me

“

The bit I agreed with excluded the bit about commitment.

What I was agreeing with was that a belief is not “an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe”.

It’s just what you think is probably true at the time, based on any evidence you choose to take into consideration, that’s all.

So on some planets children might not be the future

Stuff the future Whitney wants some coke right now!

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what you mean by that, so I don’t know if there is or there isn’t, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do what the word “believe” means.

but I think you did understand when you accepted the first paragraph, agreed with it, in fact you went so far as to say it was what you said, which doubt it was, but whatever

the paragraph went as follows..to quote myself exactly, minus the italics

“I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head”

so I dunno, perhaps there’s a revelation in that use of commitment above, you tell me

“

The bit I agreed with excluded the bit about commitment.

What I was agreeing with was that a belief is not “an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe”.

It’s just what you think is probably true at the time, based on any evidence you choose to take into consideration, that’s all.

people have beliefs, committed attitudes (if you will), many of that are largely unconscious (unabstracted) that are hardly generated by what I suppose you mean by evidence, in fact they can be contrary to evidence

a lot of a persons true at the time generating motivations are inclined by biology, the structures of were shaped hundreds of thousands, even millions of years ago

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The bit I agreed with excluded the bit about commitment.

What I was agreeing with was that a belief is not “an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe”.

It’s just what you think is probably true at the time, based on any evidence you choose to take into consideration, that’s all.

So on some planets children might not be the future

I’m not sure what that means, but there seem to be lots of planets where there are no children, so I guess it is most likely true that there are planets where children are not the future, whatever it means.

I believe children are the future doesn’t ring true through the universe as its a belief not knowledge

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

but I think you did understand when you accepted the first paragraph, agreed with it, in fact you went so far as to say it was what you said, which doubt it was, but whatever

the paragraph went as follows..to quote myself exactly, minus the italics

“I guess it might or can, used that way, but it also often conveys that it is my view, or a view, that sort of thing, suggests the possibility of it not being an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe, more a local commitment to whatever inside ones own head”

so I dunno, perhaps there’s a revelation in that use of commitment above, you tell me

“

The bit I agreed with excluded the bit about commitment.

What I was agreeing with was that a belief is not “an absolute pervasive certainty throughout the entire universe”.

It’s just what you think is probably true at the time, based on any evidence you choose to take into consideration, that’s all.

people have beliefs, committed attitudes (if you will), many of that are largely unconscious (unabstracted) that are hardly generated by what I suppose you mean by evidence, in fact they can be contrary to evidence

a lot of a persons true at the time generating motivations are inclined by biology, the structures of were shaped hundreds of thousands, even millions of years ago

Sure, but that’s just a sub-set of all the things that can be called a belief.

In particular, there is nothing in the word implying any sort of “commitment”, in fact the word implies less commitment than things that might be called knowledge.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

So on some planets children might not be the future

I’m not sure what that means, but there seem to be lots of planets where there are no children, so I guess it is most likely true that there are planets where children are not the future, whatever it means.

I believe children are the future doesn’t ring true through the universe as its a belief not knowledge

I’d imagine that most people who use that phrase would be talking about this planet, wouldn’t they?

Also I don’t think there’s any hard dividing line between “belief” and “knowledge”, just varying degrees of certainty.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m not sure what that means, but there seem to be lots of planets where there are no children, so I guess it is most likely true that there are planets where children are not the future, whatever it means.

I believe children are the future doesn’t ring true through the universe as its a belief not knowledge

I’d imagine that most people who use that phrase would be talking about this planet, wouldn’t they?

Also I don’t think there’s any hard dividing line between “belief” and “knowledge”, just varying degrees of certainty.

Yes I’m just being silly

this is all a matter for semantics but we’re mostly with The Rev Dodgson

SCIENCE said:

this is all a matter for semantics but we’re mostly with The Rev Dodgson

perhaps it is more semantics than substance

but I think kicking around in the OP, and it’s persisted, is the question, maybe, is religious faith (belief in God) always so different to the beliefs a practical atheist might operate from, or with, and to that question i’d ask is an atheist’s (internal) world largely held to together by imaginary stuff, made up stuff

does the average practical atheist patch their knowledge to a similar extent, or in some way analogously

my impression is they do, believing in God doesn’t make a entirely different creature, a different psychological species

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

this is all a matter for semantics but we’re mostly with The Rev Dodgson

perhaps it is more semantics than substance

but I think kicking around in the OP, and it’s persisted, is the question, maybe, is religious faith (belief in God) always so different to the beliefs a practical atheist might operate from, or with, and to that question i’d ask is an atheist’s (internal) world largely held to together by imaginary stuff, made up stuff

does the average practical atheist patch their knowledge to a similar extent, or in some way analogously

my impression is they do, believing in God doesn’t make a entirely different creature, a different psychological species

Are you an atheist?

SCIENCE said:

this is all a matter for semantics but we’re mostly with The Rev Dodgson

>Also I don’t think there’s any hard dividing line between “belief” and “knowledge”, just varying degrees of certainty.

There is a hard line if you look closely enough.

I call it the law of three. If you get three independent confirmations of the same statement then you accept it as true. You “know” it.

Fewer independent confirmations than that and it remains a belief.

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

this is all a matter for semantics but we’re mostly with The Rev Dodgson

perhaps it is more semantics than substance

but I think kicking around in the OP, and it’s persisted, is the question, maybe, is religious faith (belief in God) always so different to the beliefs a practical atheist might operate from, or with, and to that question i’d ask is an atheist’s (internal) world largely held to together by imaginary stuff, made up stuff

does the average practical atheist patch their knowledge to a similar extent, or in some way analogously

my impression is they do, believing in God doesn’t make a entirely different creature, a different psychological species

Are you an atheist?

I imagine most people internals worlds are mostly imagination mixed in with some reality

I’d hope atheists would require evidence before they’d believe in anything
That’s the thing with religion it asks for belief (at the minimum usually life altering habits you must do or your bad) with no evidence something not accepted elsewhere.

>my impression is they do, believing in God doesn’t make a entirely different creature, a different psychological species

Statistics show that “no religion” is the fasting-growing grouping in the West (although not all those people are atheists), so it would appear that it’s quite easy for theists to transform into atheists in the right cultural environment.

So we’re not necessarily looking at fundamental cognitive differences between the two groups, although that probably is the case in regard to the most committed believers.

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

this is all a matter for semantics but we’re mostly with The Rev Dodgson

perhaps it is more semantics than substance

but I think kicking around in the OP, and it’s persisted, is the question, maybe, is religious faith (belief in God) always so different to the beliefs a practical atheist might operate from, or with, and to that question i’d ask is an atheist’s (internal) world largely held to together by imaginary stuff, made up stuff

does the average practical atheist patch their knowledge to a similar extent, or in some way analogously

my impression is they do, believing in God doesn’t make a entirely different creature, a different psychological species

Are you an atheist?

put it this way, I have some appreciation of imaginary friends, I think everyone has at least one, some might claim they don’t, and consider for a moment the estrangement of that, for any imaginary friend

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

perhaps it is more semantics than substance

but I think kicking around in the OP, and it’s persisted, is the question, maybe, is religious faith (belief in God) always so different to the beliefs a practical atheist might operate from, or with, and to that question i’d ask is an atheist’s (internal) world largely held to together by imaginary stuff, made up stuff

does the average practical atheist patch their knowledge to a similar extent, or in some way analogously

my impression is they do, believing in God doesn’t make a entirely different creature, a different psychological species

Are you an atheist?

put it this way, I have some appreciation of imaginary friends, I think everyone has at least one, some might claim they don’t, and consider for a moment the estrangement of that, for any imaginary friend

If you regard gods as imaginary, you’re an atheist.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you an atheist?

put it this way, I have some appreciation of imaginary friends, I think everyone has at least one, some might claim they don’t, and consider for a moment the estrangement of that, for any imaginary friend

If you regard gods as imaginary, you’re an atheist.

I don’t agree with that

subject imaginary friends, do you have any, I won’t tell anyone, just between you and me

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

perhaps it is more semantics than substance

but I think kicking around in the OP, and it’s persisted, is the question, maybe, is religious faith (belief in God) always so different to the beliefs a practical atheist might operate from, or with, and to that question i’d ask is an atheist’s (internal) world largely held to together by imaginary stuff, made up stuff

does the average practical atheist patch their knowledge to a similar extent, or in some way analogously

my impression is they do, believing in God doesn’t make a entirely different creature, a different psychological species

Are you an atheist?

put it this way, I have some appreciation of imaginary friends, I think everyone has at least one, some might claim they don’t, and consider for a moment the estrangement of that, for any imaginary friend

You’re being very slippery. :-)

I’m just curious because you’ve mentioned attending mass but others have said that’s just a euphemism for Sunday outings of various kinds.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

put it this way, I have some appreciation of imaginary friends, I think everyone has at least one, some might claim they don’t, and consider for a moment the estrangement of that, for any imaginary friend

If you regard gods as imaginary, you’re an atheist.

I don’t agree with that

subject imaginary friends, do you have any, I won’t tell anyone, just between you and me

Like you, I regard gods as imaginary. But unlike you, I don’t regard them as my friends.

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you an atheist?

put it this way, I have some appreciation of imaginary friends, I think everyone has at least one, some might claim they don’t, and consider for a moment the estrangement of that, for any imaginary friend

You’re being very slippery. :-)

I’m just curious because you’ve mentioned attending mass but others have said that’s just a euphemism for Sunday outings of various kinds.

chuckle

not slippery, you already knew the answer to your own question I expected, serious proposition though, regard imaginary friends

Bubblecar said:

Like you, I regard gods as imaginary. But unlike you, I don’t regard them as my friends.

Trees, now that’s a different matter. For example the big mother elm in the garden of the old cottage was a symbol of life and growth for me, and I certainly thought of her as a friend and benefactor, while of course realising that this was just my imagination transforming the garden into a more personally meaningful place, for my own inspiration and enjoyment.

I certainly don’t feel that way about shitty old Jehovah, narcissistic Jesus or those four-armed critters with elephant heads etc.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Like you, I regard gods as imaginary. But unlike you, I don’t regard them as my friends.

Trees, now that’s a different matter. For example the big mother elm in the garden of the old cottage was a symbol of life and growth for me, and I certainly thought of her as a friend and benefactor, while of course realising that this was just my imagination transforming the garden into a more personally meaningful place, for my own inspiration and enjoyment.

I certainly don’t feel that way about shitty old Jehovah, narcissistic Jesus or those four-armed critters with elephant heads etc.

The bush is my friend and if you care for it and wish it no harm, it will reveal itself to you in so many ways.

.
…for the swear~jar…

Do you believe that THE Election was stolen?

Ogmog said:

.
…for the swear~jar…

Do you believe that THE Election was stolen?

I believe that the orange bumbumface TRIED to steal the election, but failed.

but what about a theist, or an anatheist, or even an anaesthetist

Ogmog said:

.
…for the swear~jar…

Do you believe that THE Election was stolen?

Not really. I mean I never saw it disappear or nothin’ like.

The book I’m reading says this about the difference between truth and belief.

• What happened
• What he believed happened
• What he would have liked to have happened
• What he wanted others to believe happened
• What he wanted others to believe that he believed happened

mollwollfumble said:

The book I’m reading says this about the difference between truth and belief.

• What happened
• What he believed happened
• What he would have liked to have happened
• What he wanted others to believe happened
• What he wanted others to believe that he believed happened
  

my point was
belief isn’t necessarily all about religion

Ogmog said:

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

The book I’m reading says this about the difference between truth and belief.

• What happened
• What he believed happened
• What he would have liked to have happened
• What he wanted others to believe happened
• What he wanted others to believe that he believed happened
  

my point was
belief isn’t necessarily all about religion

that’s quite a long bow drawn into that image

Ogmog said:

my point was
belief isn’t necessarily all about religion

That was my point too.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

my point was
belief isn’t necessarily all about religion

That was my point too.

we know

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

this is all a matter for semantics but we’re mostly with The Rev Dodgson

>Also I don’t think there’s any hard dividing line between “belief” and “knowledge”, just varying degrees of certainty.

There is a hard line if you look closely enough.

I call it the law of three. If you get three independent confirmations of the same statement then you accept it as true. You “know” it.

Fewer independent confirmations than that and it remains a belief.

Any hard line is going to be arbitrary though.

Can’t say I’m keen on your “three strikes and your in” declaration.

wikipedia’s a good example of a knowledge base, written a particular way, about what is known of various things, and the presentation style, the standards involved employ language in such a way that requires knowledge of language use about conveying knowledge, an encyclopedic form maybe, though today explanations can be more comprehensive because a digital page is not confined to a book page as it once were, and there’s linking to other material, quite a different world really. Allows easy updating, contributions by many to content and editing. The pages also convey something of the state of knowledge regard whatever

clearly some intelligent people contribute to it, I couldn’t do that

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

If you regard gods as imaginary, you’re an atheist.

I don’t agree with that

subject imaginary friends, do you have any, I won’t tell anyone, just between you and me

Like you, I regard gods as imaginary. But unlike you, I don’t regard them as my friends.

I was more getting at all human mental activity involves imagination, of some sort, and representational efforts, conversions the wetware perform, representational conversions, all employ imagination, or involve imagination

it doesn’t matter how real God is, even if God were real, indisputably real, you’d still need an imaginative effort to perceive and conceive the whatever, and any such God wouldn’t obliterate your imagination making conceiving the thing impossible

my point was imagination is your friend (mostly), and the reverse is true in an important way, your friend in imagination, you are largely imagination, so you have an imaginary friend, really, in an important way

i’d expect commitment (faith, hope, by way of belief) to things that aren’t properly true is more common than some might imagine, I mean people share ideas with an objective and whatever is made so by the commitment to the ideas

take the example of politics where it ventures social objectives, related egalitarianism, making a fairer society

the social policies could have an egalitarian objective, to trend whatever structures toward something fairer

this requires an egalitarian object, to reduce unfairness, disparities

of course absolute equality probably doesn’t exist, isn’t achievable, perhaps can be seen as an absurdity, but the objective of increasing equality is sensible, even practical

so absolute equality doesn’t really exist (people know that), but to make whatever fairer is possible, and that requires belief in equality

transition said:

i’d expect commitment (faith, hope, by way of belief) to things that aren’t properly true is more common than some might imagine, I mean people share ideas with an objective and whatever is made so by the commitment to the ideas

take the example of politics where it ventures social objectives, related egalitarianism, making a fairer society

the social policies could have an egalitarian objective, to trend whatever structures toward something fairer

this requires an egalitarian object, to reduce unfairness, disparities

of course absolute equality probably doesn’t exist, isn’t achievable, perhaps can be seen as an absurdity, but the objective of increasing equality is sensible, even practical

so absolute equality doesn’t really exist (people know that), but to make whatever fairer is possible, and that requires belief in equality

I’m not sure one believes in equality but more desires it.