Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Belief) (Humans)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 22:53 (4858 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: "Acceptance of information which is thought to be true by some but not all individuals who are aware of it." And my own: Acceptance of a claim. 
To settle fears about this being too simple, lets consider that it is possible to believe something that is known by others, and not yourself. For awhile as an atheist, I believed in evolution, instead of having knowledge about it. -My definition of knowledge, to which you had agreed, is: "possession (internalization perhaps?) of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it" (e.g. 1+1=2). If you think evolution is true, that is belief. Having knowledge ABOUT evolution is totally different. As illustrated in my post of 24 January at 20.07, some BELIEFS connected with the theory of evolution are based partly on KNOWLEDGE: for example, common ancestry. Humans and chimps have similar structures (= knowledge, because everyone agrees). This is used as evidence that they had a common ancestor (= belief, because millions of people don't agree). I think my definitions make the distinctions clear. What elements of evolution were you aware of and believed but did not know? Or are you confusing the evidence ... similar structures (knowledge) ... with the conclusion ... common ancestry (belief)?
 
MATT: In my personal usage I use the term "accept" as in "I provisionally accept the claim [x] made by consensus," as opposed to "I believe [x]." -Personal usage is not an ideal element in an epistemological framework designed to make meanings clear to everyone. There is already confusion here. In your post of 21 January at 14.01, you wrote: "knowledge is a consensus of what we think the truth is" (I don't accept this, by the way), so how in your terms can an "assertion of truth" (your definition of claim) made by consensus relate to belief? In any case, "accept" and "believe" can mean totally different things. "Mr X believes that he is soon going to die" = his conviction that this is so; "Mr X accepts that he is soon going to die" = he's resigned to the fact. I just don't understand your objection to "believe". What's wrong with it in the examples I've given (24 January at 20.07)?
 
MATT: If more conciseness is needed, we can modify it.-Conciseness is not the issue. I'm looking for clarity (see my earlier post).-MATT: Maybe "Acceptance of a claim where knowledge is ambiguous?" It is very similar to your own, only a tad more concise.-First part already dealt with earlier. Second part: knowledge can't be ambiguous if everyone who is aware of the information accepts it as being true! -***I see from your latest post that 1+1=2 counts as a "claim"! So what is your definition of knowledge now? Your definitions may be more concise, but they get more confusing with every post.