Asklemmy

From many perspectives the two are the same and that ís a huge problem

Knowledge can be proven, like how a beautiful sunrise proves the existence of god. /s

There's no god. As soon as we get that point across, we can start meaningfully improving things.

For knowledge, I first try to contextualize the piece of thinking into a human framework. Once I did this, I ask myself if the piece of thinking can be known by any system that can be replicated. If this is the case, then I look into it, to get a grasp of how the piece of thinking became a piece of information and the context in which it was tested. Then I adopt it, trying to remember that context.

A belief I just decide it is true. I have personal rules for it too. 1) Overall, I'd like it to be a part of my life because it makes me feel better than not having it, and 2) it doesn't hurt anyone else, as far as I know.

Obviously, off the top of my head.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

You can't know whether you have it or not.

Keeping a close eye and tight rain on bias and fallacy, observation beats word of mouth. A peer-reviewed scientific study is exactly equal to observation.

Mathematical proof is also observation.

Lack of observation does not in any way indicate lack of truth. Because you feel or don't feel some way and have or have not seen something happen to someone else in no way influences whether something actually happened to someone else. Our perception filters are incredibly bad.

Appeal to authority means very little as single people easily get biased. Discount anything said if the person telling you the truth stands to gain money power or time from it being believed.

Belief is overarching concepts, knowledge is specifics, many in this thread are conflating belief with faith

I believe in science because I have knowledge of the scientific method.

I know I exist. Everything else is varying levels of belief.

Belief is when a claim comes from a source I trust. In some cases, it’s a source I’m choosing to trust.

Like, my nephew is staying with me. He’s had meth issues in the past. His alternative is a shelter. He claims that he has a seizure disorder, and that puts me in a difficult spot because he says it gets worse on the street and also in shelters.

That’s pretty believable, but there’s a part of me that’s aware it could be a manipulation, this whole claim. I haven’t asked for evidence, despite the feeling of doubt.

This is a belief of mine. I am choosing to believe his claim.

If he were to show me authenticatable hospital paperwork documenting the seizure disorder, then it would be knowledge. Then I would know.

This is an example of the difference between the two in my own life right now. It’s a belief because to a certain degree I’m taking his word for it.

Incidentally this is the same way I think the word works in religion. People believe in God because they choose to. I feel like I know God exists, because I’ve encountered it during mushroom trips. But others, who haven’t had those direct contact experiences, believe.

Facts are made up by humans. If an opinion of mine regarding an empirical argument conforms with the general good of the public I prefer to spend time with, I accept it as a fact. When my opinions contradict with this, I accept that I believe it this way, considering neither options are testable or objectifiable.

I don't. Everything I think is true, I have various evidence that it is. If the evidence is stronger, the surety is stronger. Think, believe, know... all the same thing, all dependent on evidence.