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

by dhw, Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:21 (4857 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt wished to define belief as "Acceptance of a claim where knowledge is ambiguous." I objected that knowledge can't be ambiguous.-MATT: Any subject on which we have incomplete knowledge I would at the least consider incomplete if not ambiguous.-I doubt if anyone would disagree with you that if something is incomplete it is incomplete. But if knowledge is what we all accept as being true, how can it be ambiguous?-MATT: Thinking about what you say here a little more, science operates by consensus. So, scientific knowledge is spurious?-All knowledge operates by consensus (a word I'm coming to like more and more ... see later), but even my own definition: "possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it" ... which I agree is faulty ... precludes spuriousness, bearing in mind our earlier agreement that knowledge (acceptance as truth) and truth are not the same thing. Again, though, this shows just how essential it is to distinguish clearly between knowledge and belief if we're to establish an epistemological framework.-However, you're right that there's a problem with my definitions, which I'll come to in a moment. First, we need to consider the implications of your "negative proof": the Flat Earth Society (well known here too). The very first point I made in bold when we started out on this discussion was: "It could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case the discussion ends here." "The Flat Earth Society" is a typical illustration of the problem when you leave the common-sense level and go back to the philosophical level, where there is no knowledge. In my post of 24 January at 20.07, what I wrote about belief also applies to knowledge: "...it might be argued that philosophically this puts all beliefs on a par (see Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting the sun). Once again, I would argue that the common-sense level should come into operation during discussions. If all participants agree that a particular belief is too improbable to be considered, it should not be considered." Flat earth is in the same category as Russell's teapot, and Chief Abacus-Babacus insisting that his symbol 5 must be used instead of our symbol 4. If we return to this philosophical level, the discussion comes to an end. -However, definitions even at the common-sense level should allow for exceptions and should stand up to philosophical scrutiny, and mine don't. That's a fair criticism. The task, then, is to find two definitions that will distinguish between belief and knowledge by incorporating the subjectivity of belief but will also allow for the flat-earthers.-As regards what's on offer, you defined knowledge as "a consensus of what we think the truth is". I like "consensus", which allows for exceptions. My problem is its combination with "what we think is the truth". Who are "we"? I can imagine a congregation of flat-earthers crying: "We think flat earth is the truth and we have a consensus!" (A consensus can be confined to groups.) -All knowledge and all beliefs relate to information of some kind, so perhaps we might agree on: "Information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it." Our definition needs to encompass recondite and personal forms of knowledge (hence "awareness"), and we must take consensus out of groups. I've added "general" to make that clearer. To counter a possible philosophical objection, Bill "knows" he has seen demons, but you are aware of this, and there is no consensus. If he keeps the information to himself, he can call it knowledge if he wants to.-Belief is trickier. As regards "claim", I have no problem with the "philosophical" definition, which in any case is one of the everyday definitions. My complaint is that your use of it does not clarify the vital distinction between belief and knowledge. Your definition of belief is "acceptance of a claim". One of your examples of a claim is 1+1=2. I accept that claim, and so according to your definition, my acceptance = belief. But we have agreed that 1+1=2 constitutes knowledge. -Before I make a suggestion, let's get the conciseness/clarity argument out of the way. You wrote: "Exactly what is the difference between these words; because a concise claim is necessarily clear!" Concise is brief, clear is easy to understand (as if you didn't know). A definition like yours, which confuses the two things we are trying to define, can hardly be called clear. I don't care about conciseness, and I'm not bothered about style. I just want clarity.
 
New suggestion: Information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.
(I think "awareness" is unnecessary here, since belief is individual.)-Apologies for the length of this post, but you raised a lot of questions. I'd hoped our search for a framework would have moved onto my post of 24 January at 20.07, but I guess we're still stuck on definitions. Well, I'm game, though I suspect that you and I are now all alone in the universe.