Metaphorical line between knowledge and belief ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Knowledge Line
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the distinction between "knowledge" and "belief," exploring whether a clear metaphorical line exists between the two concepts. Participants examine the implications of scientific knowledge, personal beliefs, and the nature of truth, with a focus on philosophical perspectives and the role of testability.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the difference between "knowledge" and "belief," suggesting that scientific knowledge is based on assumptions and observations that may not represent an objective reality.
  • Others argue that scientific knowledge consists of hypotheses that can be empirically tested, asserting that successful predictions validate this knowledge.
  • A participant suggests that belief can be seen as a form of knowledge, but not synonymous with it, and emphasizes the importance of defining terms like "belief" and "knowledge."
  • Some participants highlight the role of testability in distinguishing knowledge from belief, proposing that knowledge requires the ability to be independently verified.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of private knowledge, particularly in relation to qualia and personal experiences, which may not be publicly testable.
  • One participant challenges the notion that beliefs can be verified through testing, arguing that verification has been largely replaced by the concept of falsification in scientific discourse.
  • Another participant contends that all beliefs, regardless of their testability, can be considered knowledge from the perspective of the individual holding those beliefs.
  • A reference to Quine's "The Web of Belief" is made as a potential resource for further exploration of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between knowledge and belief, with no consensus reached on whether they are distinct or overlapping concepts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of testability and the nature of private knowledge.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of defining terms and the philosophical implications of knowledge and belief, highlighting that personal experiences and subjective truths may complicate the discussion.

  • #61


brainstorm said:
If I miss some finer nuance that you claim is irritating that I miss, my question to you is whether it was explicit? If it wasn't, then the "teacher" needs to learn to better explicate what was missed.

If an issue appears repeatedly in your interactions with people, then it is likely to be your issue.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


apeiron said:
If an issue appears repeatedly in your interactions with people, then it is likely to be your issue.

"likely" isn't good enough to establish certainty. Provide an example for analysis and I'll apologize if I was at fault.
 
  • #63


brainstorm said:
"likely" isn't good enough to establish certainty. Provide an example for analysis and I'll apologize if I was at fault.

Try https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2664214&postcount=20

Originally Posted by brainstorm
You can measure an imaginary unicorn...

Yeah, you can't measure imaginary things. You can pretend to, but that's totally irrelevant to anything we're discussing.

I'm trying to keep this on track here. I think we'd all appreciate a little effort.
 
  • #64


apeiron said:
Try https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2664214&postcount=20

Originally Posted by brainstorm
You can measure an imaginary unicorn...

Yeah, you can't measure imaginary things. You can pretend to, but that's totally irrelevant to anything we're discussing.

I'm trying to keep this on track here. I think we'd all appreciate a little effort.

The point was that no proof of existence is necessary for the act of measurement. All that is necessary is a unit of comparison, an object to represent the unit, and a logic for comparing the unit object with the thing to be measured.

People were arguing that for something to be measured it had to be real, or that measurability proves that something is real. The unicorn example was to show that reality-status has nothing to do with measurability.
 

Similar threads

Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
How does knowledge play a role in understanding metaphors?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Question about the Scientific Method
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Is Reality Just a Construct of Our Beliefs?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
My Take on the Limitations of Scientific Knowledge
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
How to Determine Temperature Difference Between Two Stars Using Spectral Lines?
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Philosophy and Physics-physics needs philosophy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Why can we never be certain of our scientific theories?
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
9K