That is a statement concerning the ontology of a knowledge claim, not of knowledge itself. That is a subtle but very important distinction which, if not grasped and maintained, will lead to a very unproductive conversation. There are different kinds of knowledge, however all of them amount to know how. Seeing how the thread concerns belief, and not knowledge, I'll not get too far into that aspect. Suffice it to say that all knowledge claims first require that the claimant believe the claim is true.



True, and that is why I'm not equating belief and knowledge. I'm not claiming that knowledge is "nothing more than beliefs", nor does that follow from anything I've claimed.



Knowledge can require belief, and belief be insufficient for knowledge. I've already set this out. I'll do it again, one more time. Knowledge of X requires...

1. Believing X
2. Being justified in believing X
3. X being true

I think the issue you've addressed here would probably be the most central issue to what would inevitably lead to misunderstandings and confusion.

I would disagree with your statement above because I am not an absolutist, as your statement would require. I feel confident that jrbogie would probably feel somewhat similar because of points that he had previously made.

He has stated on several occasions that he does not 'know' anything in that kind of absolute sense, and that he takes everything with a grain of salt, etc.

I feel much the same way. Therefore your assertion that all knowledge claims first require that the claimant believes the claim to be true is far to rigid.

In other words, you are assuming that the person who claims to have 'knowledge' is prepared to stand behind it with a level of belief in it which simply may not exist from there perspective at all.

So you're working from a vantage point that the other people simply aren't even suggesting to be the case.

I've seen you misunderstand this concerning Jeanniebean's position quite often. She has stated time and time again, that the only things she "knows" with absolute certainty is that she exist. And she doesn't even feel a need to "believe" it because it's simply her experience and 'belief' is not even required at all.

Any so-called "knowledge" beyond that, is indeed in question and can never be known with this same kind of conviction.

So in that sense, you aren't even addressing an issue that is anything other than trivial common understanding.

Although I will grant you that there are people out there who seem to think that their 'knowledge' does have some sort of absolute concrete value.

But that only applies to those people, and certainly not to the human psyche in general. So that would fall more into psychology of why some people seem to feel that their opinions and views constitute "absolute undeniable truths".

Those kinds of people certain do exist.

But to try to extrapolate that onto the human condition as a whole would be itself an unjustified 'belief', IMHO.

Like jrbogie, JeannieBean, and people like myself, have quite often pointed out, we recognize that the "knowledge" we have may indeed need to be refined or changed at some point as new information becomes available.

We do not treat "knowledge" as an absolute that is carved in stone.

In fact, in your previous thread on the nature of Truth and whether or not truth is subjective, this is precisely the point that I was making. I was making the very valid point that truth (as defined by humans as a human construct of conception), is indeed recognized and defined in a way that allows for this malleability.

You're argument was that this is a misguided notion of "Truth", and that you need for the concept of truth to be "absolute". But that very idealism misses the point. It also assumes that there can indeed be 'absolute knowledge' which a person can be 100% confident of.

It is this very notion of an idealized absolutism which you continually attempt to support that is being waved off as being an unrealistic and unattainable ideology. It's a philosophies unicorn pipe dream. Perhaps interesting to ponder, but not truly supportable via rigorous logic as you seem to be attempting to construct.



So the bottom line for me is that I simply disagree with your statement above.

Everyone who is claiming to have "knowledge" of things is not claiming to have an unshakable belief in them.

That is a false premise right there. At least with respect to some humans as I have pointed out above.

So I guess this ends my participation in this thread, since I already disagree with your foundational premise.

Anything that is argued upon a premise that I already disagree with would be a moot point for me to continue to discuss.

So at least we found the core of our disagreement on this topic.

I simply don't accept your foundational premise. It most certainly doesn't apply to me personally, and therefore anything you build atop that premise has no applicability or interest for me personally.

That's my view on that.

didn't claim it. simply related an experience.

Abra,

If you're claiming that knowledge can be false, I've nothing further.

This is false. Believing that one's knowledge is true does not require being an absolutist.

"it wasn't that they were being untruthful" is a claim regarding the truthfulness of their testimony, specifically, it is the openly expressed belief that you held concerning that at the time of the statement.

If you are claiming that it can't be, then chances are very good that you have absolutely no knowledge at all. Probably everything that you think you 'know' is in error in some fundamental way.

Apparently you're dreaming of an idealized philosophical world that cannot exist in the real world. I'm not sure that should even be posted in philosophy. Although I will grant you that this was indeed Plato's view during the classical age of ancient Greece.

Although, even Plato recognized that his idealized philosophical world would be something removed from this world, and that this world would be merely a shadow of that idealized abstract perfection.

But, in any case, Plato has already done this to death so I see no point in doing it again here, just read Plato if you like that sort of thing. It didn't lead to anything more than a philosophical ideal back in ancient Greece, and it's not going to lead to anything more than that today.

Well, disagreement is fine. However what has been called a 'false premise' is but an ill-formed conclusion, and it is not - I repeat - it is not a premise in the position I'm arguing for. Knowledge claims do not require unshakable belief. Neither have I ever claimed such a thing, nor does that follow.



Anyone who makes a claim to knowledge must admit that they believe that the claim is true if they are to be taken seriously.

"I believe X, but X is false" is nonsensical.

It is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. As soon as we realize that X is false, we cannot possibly continue to believe that X is true. That goes for "most likely to be true" claims as well, if we're splitting hairs.



I've assumed no such thing. Absolute unshakable conviction is not required for belief, nor is it required for belief that is inherent to a knowledge claim.

I am of the opinion that we're most likely witnessing an overcompensation that is commonly called radical skepticism.

Belief is an irrevocable condition of all thinking creatures. Identifying belief is of utmost importance. Identity itself, however, first requires believing that something is there. Remove rudimentary belief, and you will have removed the very capacity for more complex thought. Belief systems and knowledge about the world and/or ourselves is accrued. Thought/belief about the world around us emerges from a combination of our innately had physiological sensory perceptive mechanisms and our cognitive faculty working in conjunction with one another. We form thought/belief about the world around us via our sensory apparati becoming 'wired' into our brains, and that happens autonomously.

We only later come to be able to doubt what we're told and/or what we read, etc. The important consideration here, by my lights, is that all doubt is grounded upon pre-existing belief... necessarily so. Therefore, it only follows that belief comes first, prior to the ability to doubt. Rudimentary thought/belief form the initial foundation, i.e. the initial basis of the worldview we employ for making sense of the universe and it's contents - which includes ourselves. This is all rather uncontroversial, except on rare occasion.



One could complicate matters, I suppose. I see no need. "I believe X" means I believe X is true. The "is true" is superfluous and/or redundant. Therefore, it is usually left out. It is impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. As soon as a person becomes aware that X is false, s/he can no longer believe/hold that X is true. Human history and knowledge bears witness to this, as well as jrbogie's anecdotes and Abra's position regarding Christian doctrine. "I believe X, but X is false or most likely false" is completely counterintuitive. Thought/belief cannot work like that, and really we have no choice in that matter.



For clarity...

The premiss is simple. "I believe X" means I believe X is true.

There is also something called the assertion/belief/truth triangle that seems to hold strong with any given assertion. It goes something like this...

To assert X is to believe that X is true.

Thus, when we hold an everyday conversation with another person, we see the triangle being put to use. We find no need to ask if they believe what they're saying - it is assumed, as it should be. When one doubts whether what they're saying is true, the intuitive nature of our thought kicks in and we usually clarify.

I personally have far more respect for people who understand and acknowledge that the knowledge they possess could potentially be in error, or at the very least does indeed have limitations, uncertainty and domains of applicability.

People who have convinced themselves that they have any sort of absolute undeniable truth do not impress me at all. In fact, I would much prefer to avoid such people.

Having said that, people who have sound reasons for believing in what they believe, and are enthusiastic about sharing the reasons why they believe what they do can be interesting, providing it doesn't turn into a proclamation that they do indeed hold the absolute truth.

In short, I wouldn't take any person too seriously at all who is totally convinced that the knowledge they have is absolutely correct. That's usually the sign of some sort of unreasonable zealot who probably doesn't truly know much at all.

In fact, if they already don't understand the limitations of their own knowledge, chances are that they are lacking in powers of understanding and reason to begin with.

You talk like belief should be an ON/OFF switch, either a person absolutely believes in what they know, or they don't.

That's impractical, and not even done by professional scientists. A professional scientist will usually offer up all of the uncertainties, premises, and assumptions up front.

That is a sign of a truly intelligent person, IMHO.

People who are under the erroneous belief that they hold absolute perfect truth are the people to avoid.

But that's YOUR premise. And it is indeed overly-simplified.

The premise that I would offer is far less absolute.

"I believe X is highly plausible" means I believe X is highly plusible.

It does not mean that I believe X is "true".

That is your error.

You are attempting for force the concept of "belief" to be a simplistic ON/OFF state for everyone.

But that's not how everyone views 'belief'.

There are many degrees of "belief"

This is why people like myself and jrbogie say to people like YOU that we "believe" NOTHING.

For the very reason that you have made it clear that you have an unrealistic and overly-simplistic view of what the very term "belief" should mean.

You seem to be treating it like an ON/OFF switch. You either believe something is true, or you don't. PERIOD.

That's an extremely simplistic and narrow-minded approach to the concept of "belief".

This is why it's futile to even try to discuss anything with you. You seem to take everything to extremism and absolutism.

Our notion of "belief" is far more flexible than you allow for.

We think more in terms of possibility, probability, plausibility, etc.

It's only YOU who continually try to force this into a very simple-minded state of either "TRUE" or "FALSE" with nothing inbetween these extremes being considered.

You even CONFRONT people with things like "Do you believe this or not?"

That is an over-simplification.

For all knowledge that I have there are reasons to "believe it" and reasons to be "question it". And this is most likely the case with all human knowledge.

You're trying to force things into a state of absolutism that simply has no place in reality.

You say:


No. It's not that SIMPLE at all. That is a gross over-simplification of reality.

In fact, typically the "X" under consideration is often quite complex and may depend upon many lesser beliefs and or knowledge.

The more complex things become, the less certain belief can be.

To even claim that you believe anything in an absolute sense if probably a misguided notion in and of itself.

If you actually stop and think about it you'll probably end up saying, "Well of course it depends on this, that, and the other things being true too, but I'm assuming those, etc, etc, etc."

In short, almost everything that people claim to actually believe is actually dependent upon a myriad of premises that they are currently just taking for granted when they claim that they actually believe something.

I agree and have never claimed otherwise. Only a fool would claim that they've obtained a complete collection of true beliefs, but perhaps only a bigger one denies that humans have knowledge(justified true belief).

--

Suffice it to say here that claiming that knowledge can be false is begging for truth and will almost invariably leads one to not knowing the difference between knowledge and belief.



I agree, with the caveat; As long as we do not conflate knowledge and truth.





I could not disagree more, how else do we help them along their way?



I have no idea what "the absolute truth" is even referring to.

--

I feel like as long as we keep a few things in mind here, all can be well. I'm checking tosee here if we all realize that when discussing argumentative soundnesss the dialogue is bound by the necessary presupposition of truth in thought/belief. I mean, we do all understand this, right? We can know this because we've been given the logical fact that the soundness of an argument in any meaningful philosophical sense is completely contingent upon it's being based upon true premisses in addition to being validly inferred/deducted. Therefore to talk of soundness requires believing that the premisses are true and the inference/deductions are valid.



I suppose it can be, but is it somehow forbidden to be totally convinced that we do hold true belief? I think not.



I agree, as above...

--



Please, as a matter of consideration for others, and as for a matter of being honest with ourselves - which I'm certain can be hard, nonetheless, let our claims about another at least be true.

The quote does not obtain.

Reality may not be that simple, but we're not discussing the necessary constituents of reality. Rather, we're discussing the necessary constituents regarding our belief about it.

Are you claiming that "I believe X, but X is false" makes sense?

"Highly plausible" does not mean highly plausible to be false - does it?

So, you figure when little children form their beliefs that your premiss governs it?

I would say that when humans form initial thought/belief about the way things are that there is no idea that things may not be that way. We are born as solipsistic naive realists. It is only after we've become aware of our own mistake(s) somewhere along the line do we begin to question whether or not our thought/belief is true.

There is no need to claim all certainty is unwarranted based upon being wrong about some past belief(s).

nope. it's a conclusion that i came to regarding the truthfulness of their testimony. i don't know that my conclusion is correct. after all, i cannot know that god does not exist anymore than they know that it does exist. but it is a BELIEF that they hold. i cannot believe anything i cannot know and i cannot know anything other than what i experience. i keep repeating myself but my position doesn't change simply because you become 'suspicious' of my thinking. you asked for people's thoughts on belief. you have mine. simple really.

A conclusion is a statement. I suppose my point here concerning how you've laid things out here jrbogie is that I find it unreasonable to claim no belief at all based upon the possibility of being incorrect. Stating that something is most likely to be the case is believing that something is most likely to be the case. Stating that another was not being untruthful at time t1 is believing that they were not being untruthful at t1. One cannot be truthful and untruthful at the same time regarding the same thing.

I suppose I see no justification for holding that we must be absolutely certain that X is true(is the case, is the way things are) in order to believe X.

Try this jrbogie...



Do you feel that all experience is sufficient for knowledge?

my guess is that i and others here are quite aware by now, to the point of ad nausium in my case, what justifications you see or don't see as regards my thoughts. nevertheless, you have my thoughts.