It was a good read. Well done.

Thank you Mww, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[Knowledge] is both the belief in something, and a further belief that “the something” is co-existent with reality

Can you really believe in something without believing that “the something” is co-existent with reality?

I claim the sky is red while I clearly experience it as blue. The contrary existence of the blue sky negates my belief that it is red.

Can you really believe something is red and at the same time experience it as blue? Or does that “negative belief” mean that you don’t actually believe, you just “claim”?

Without memories, how could I remember my claim to what a memory is and think to deny its reality?

I don’t think that experience of remembering something requires that you actually have memories. I would grant that we both have memories, but I believe that at this point we step outside of absolute knowledge.

Can you really believe in something without believing that “the something” is co-existent with reality? — Jarmo

Yes you can. I can buy a lottery ticket believing that I will win, but with the knowledge that I probably will not. This statement is a very basic beginning to knowledge, which I go more detail into. My next line is, "Yet how can one be certain one’s belief is co-existent with reality? " I am starting with a basic premise, then questioning it myself to try to make it better. That second belief in a beliefs concurrence with reality needs something more. Then I go into contradiction.

Can you really believe something is red and at the same time experience it as blue? Or does that “negative belief” mean that you don’t actually believe, you just “claim”? — Jarmo

So in the beginning, it is assumed we are speaking colors in a "normative" way, That being that blue and red are both different colors. You understand what blue and red are, and you see red and blue as different colors. If you are seeing one color, regardless of what it is, and it is not another color, regardless of what it is, you cannot claim it is color B, when you see Color A without a contradiction.
Now if you wish to change the premises to avoid a contradiction, that is fine. But then we're not talking about the same example. The point is to understand that a person cannot hold a true contradictory belief. I cannot see 1, understand what 1 is, then claim it is 2 when I understand 1 is different from 2. Does that make sense?

I don’t think that experience of remembering something requires that you actually have memories. I would grant that we both have memories, but I believe that at this point we step outside of absolute knowledge. — Jarmo

But can you counter the point that I made about memories as being knowledge? The point is that I know I experience memories, not that those memories are accurate representations of a past reality. If I experience a memory of a pink elephant, that memory is what I know, not whether there was a pink elephant in reality that gave me that memory. At that point in the argument, I am claiming nothing more than this. Does this clarify what I'm pointing out?

I appreciate the feedback!

I can buy a lottery ticket believing that I will win, but with the knowledge that I probably will not. — Philosophim

So at the same time you believe that “you will win” and that “you probably will not win”? I don't think that is possible.

So at the same time you believe that “you will win” and that “you probably will not win”? I don't think that is possible. — Jarmo

I'm going to assume at this point that you've only read part one, otherwise you would understand what I meant by probability, and what I mean by believing something while also knowing that it is not likely. If you read through to part 4, my answer should make more sense.

If this bothers you at this point however in part 1, notice the claim is not a hard claim, it is a supposition as a starting though. I then lead from that supposition refining it into something more concrete using the law of contradiction. That is to ultimately discover that the purest form of knowledge is a discrete experience. Part 2 begins to take the knowledge of discrete experience, and then see if it can be applied to reality. For example, I might believe that a creature over there is a sheep, but how do I know its a sheep? So for now, read part 2. If you still have a question or issue with the point, we can come back to it and I can use the language and examples in part 2 to answer your question better.

Yes you can. I can buy a lottery ticket believing that I will win, but with the knowledge that I probably will not. — Philosophim

You know a probability. You do not know before the draw date that it's a losing ticket.

You buy the lottery ticket not because you believe you will win, but because you hope you will win.

Two mistakes for two tries. Not a very strong argument.

You know a probability. You do not know before the draw date that it's a losing ticket.

You buy the lottery ticket not because you believe you will win, but because you hope you will win.

Two mistakes for two tries. Not a very strong argument. — god must be atheist

I was giving an example in which a person believes they can win, but knows they likely will not. Having hope that they win can also happen, but was not the example I gave. These are two separate examples. Attacking an example I did not give is not evidence that the argument I gave "wasn't very strong".

Further, you seem to be ignoring the context of the discussion, which is the paper. This is evident, because you would know how I define belief, and that is not defined as "hope". I will enjoy your contributions to the discussion, but double check that you understand the context of the discussion before adding your opinion to a question between another poster and myself.

Further, you seem to be ignoring the context of the discussion, which is the paper. — Philosophim

I put forth respectfully that I am not ignoring the context of the discussion. I am pointing out instead,that your conceptualization of processes is muddled. You insisted again that muddled thinking.

You can't say you know something when you don't know it; and you can't say you beleive in something when you don't beleive it. You only brought up these two limping and lame examples because you were asked to present a situation. By bending the possible, you presented a situation, but I respectfully insist that your presented situation is invalid.

There is nothing respectful about it. Using the words "limping" and "lame" do not show respect. Further, if you insist the presented situation is invalid, you would address my counter point, that you were using a straw man argument. You did not. You have provided no evidence that you understand how belief and knowledge are defined within the context of the argument.

Combined with the poor use of words that simply assume your short comments have "solved the puzzle without question", I can only assume at this point you are not interested in having an intelligent discussion, but an emotional one where you try to make yourself feel good by putting another person down.

Now if you wish to remove words which demonstrate ego, and instead wish to discuss the points of the argument using neutral words like, "I think this is wrong because of x", we can happily continue and I will sweep this experience under the bridge. And this, I encourage. It is a poison trap of the mind to believe that indicating superiority over another is the final goal of intellectual discussion. I invite you to address a problem free of ego, and instead join me in a discussion.

Yes you can. I can buy a lottery ticket believing that I will win, but with the knowledge that I probably will not. — Philosophim

You can have these thoughts with attendant feelings, but it does not make sense to say you have belief X and knowledge -X. You could say 'a part of me believes that I will win but I know the chances are lower than that part of me thinks.' Because we are not unified beings. But only in the context of parts of a self does it make sense.

Let's say my name is Jack.

It doesn't make sense to say Jacks believes he will win the lottery despite his knowledge his chances are very small. (unless the lotter is rigged)

It could make sense to say part of Jack believes he will win. Part of Jack believes this is incredibly unlikely.

Generaly in philosophy knowledge is considered a rigorously arrived at belief. I do believe we can hold more than one belief about something, but then we cannot be summed up as having just one if we have more than one.

I appreciate the feedback Coben. The paper defines knowledge as I go. I am answering this question in terms of the context of the paper. And yes, you can hold knowledge, but also a separate belief depending on the circumstance. In terms of the paper, this is the combination of two types of inductions, plausibility, and probability. I go over this in part 4. I can hold the belief that it is plausible I will win, but also know the probability that indicates it is not likely that I will win. There is no contradiction within the confines of the paper that I am aware of. Feel free to point out if there is one, but you will likely need to reference part 4.

I invite you to address a problem free of ego, and instead join me in a discussion. — Philosophim

Apparently you take all counter-arguments that are based purely on logic and language, as malicious, direct, and uncalled-for attacks on your ego.

So please don't tell me

you try to make yourself feel good by putting another person down. — Philosophim

when you practice the same thing. Ignoring my arguments ONLY because of my provocative style is not what I expected you to do. You answer the same arguments that I had presented when presented to you by Coben. He put it differently, but he said the same thing as I did.

I see you can't ignore style. So why the lecture to me about ego? When your biggest obstacle of seeing arguments and meritfully responding to them is your very own ego.

Apparently you take all counter-arguments that are based purely on logic and language, as malicious, direct, and uncalled-for attacks on your ego. — god must be atheist

No, I pointed out your inappropriate attitude in you use of language is one of ego and that you ignored the counter point that your argument was a straw man. You still have not addressed this counter point, which fully addressed your argument.

You do not have a "provacative" style. Its rude, demeaning, and is not interested in hearing the argument, or further discussion. Provocative arguments get directly to the meat of the argument, and should "provoke" thought, not animus. Anyone who assumes being rude or demeaning during a discussion is somehow "intelligent" is someone using this cover as an excuse to be a rude person for their own self-satisfaction. Perhaps you were under the impression that because some people who purport to be intelligent use it to demean others, that is what intelligent discussion is all about. It is not. If you are unaware that your word choice is rude, then you have received feedback, and I invite you to change going forward. If you wish to see a way to critique an argument in a respectful manner, look at the way Coben typed his reply.

I invite you one last time. I gave you the point that your argument was a straw man argument. If you were unaware that your word choices were inflammatory, it is forgiven if you continue on with the argument itself. To your points, you will need to read part 1,2, and 4 if you are to attack what I mean when I say you can believe you will win the lottery, but know by probability that you are unlikely to win it.

Thanks for the invite Philosophim. If I could loosely paraphrase your thesis, in a practical way, I do think it is useful to parse or understand which means and methods are appropriate in gaining wisdom given the circumstances. To this end, and before I comment, I have a question.

The attachment uses a concept called "subjective deduction." Is that your theory or way of combining both a priori and a posteriori kinds of reasoning in an all inclusive way for gaining knowledge and wisdom? (And or perhaps combining subjective truths and objective truths.)

The attachment uses a concept called "subjective deduction." Is that your theory or way of combining both a priori and a posteriori kinds of reasoning in an all inclusive way for gaining knowledge and wisdom? (And or perhaps combining subjective truths and objective truths.) — 3017amen

I have had people use the a priori and a posteriori words to relate before, and it has often caused them to misunderstand the points. Subjective deduction is really the best summary of what knowledge is. The "subjective" depends on the subjects involved. This may be the self, or the context of friends, scientists, the world, etc.

However, I do have two terms that mirror the priori duo. Distinctive knowledge, or the knowledge of one's discrete experiences, is similar to a priori. Applicable knowledge is similar to a posteriori. In either case, knowledge is not a claim of truth. Knowledge is a claim of deduction. While a deduction may not be the truth, if we were to find and be certain of the truth, it would most likely come from a deduction, and not an induction.

So to your summary, it is near the mark. Just know that these are not a priori and a posteriori as fully defined. Feel free to ask on anything else, I will do my best to clarify the definitions or simplify any arguments I've put forth here.

I have had people use the a priori and a posteriori words to relate before, and it has often caused them to misunderstand the points. Subjective deduction is really the best summary of what knowledge is. The "subjective" depends on the subjects involved. This may be the self, or the context of friends, scientists, the world, etc. — Philosophim

That sounds like a subjective truth. A truth that relates to me and no other object. For example if I have a will to be or a will to exist, what deduction is required for the will?

if we were to find and be certain of the truth, it would most likely come from a deduction, and not an induction. — Philosophim

Are you sure? Are you suggesting living life is nothing but a tautology? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your holy grail of knowledge seems to be a priori deduction.

It seems to me you're making a case for subjective idealism.

As such, that would go back to our previous discussion about consciousness and logical impossibility. Since your holy grail is deduction, the consequence of such methodology in exploring or describing a particular truth value is tantamount to logical impossibility, when applied to the nature of a thing. So dedction doesn't help us in parcing ontology/consciousness because of the mutually exclusive truth values of either/or and true/false. Consciousness doesn't work that way, it's both/and. Deduction can't help us.

On the other hand if one were to analyze a given proposition through empirical analysis and inductive reasoning, there would be more import.

It's kind of like saying mathematical truth's and associated knowledge (a priori/deduction) shouldn't be used to test the validity of anything. In themselves, they are just truths that relate to abstract concepts.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your theory. How does subjective deduction explain (or describe) consciousness? (Using deduction to describe it results in logical impossibility.)

That sounds like a subjective truth. A truth that relates to me and no other object. For example if I have a will to be or a will to exist, what deduction is required for the will? — 3017amen

No, knowledge is not a claim to the truth. Knowledge is a methodology that to our understanding, will have the best hopes of obtaining the truth. Have you read part 2 and 3? (Almost no one has, lol. I take no offense). They introduce the idea of context through other subjects.

Since you've read part 1 at least, you can go back to the first part and show how will is a deduction through an understanding of discrete experience. I note that a "will" is a desire, and an action for that desire to happen. That is the distinctive knowledge we have introduced. If we agree upon it within our context, then we attempt to apply that knowledge. I find I can will to type an answer using a keyboard. Reality does not contradict me. I can will to fly with my mind alone, but reality contradicts me. As long as the application of our definition for will is not contradicted, we can know will by application.

It seems to me you're making a case for subjective idealism. — 3017amen

No, I am not stating that only ourselves exist. In part 2, I go over that very briefly at the start by explaining what an "I" is, and showing that other people are other "I"s.

Since your holy grail is deduction, the consequence of such methodology in exploring or describing a particular truth value is tantamount to logical impossibility, when applied to the nature of a thing. — 3017amen

Deduction does not prove something to be true. But it is the most rational method of matching to truth, if what we know is true. I go over that in part 4 with inductions. We cannot prove something to be true through knowledge. We can only show that knowledge is a logical methodology that holds conclusions which have not yet been contradicted by reality. As long as reality does not contradict knowledge, then it is rational to hold such a viewpoint as being the best fit for what is true.

If you have a handle on these concepts, then I can go into consciousness. First, consciousness must be defined. Is is the consciousness of the poets, the consciousness of science, or something else entirely? This establishes the contextual distinctive knowledge. Once that is done, we apply it. If we can apply it without contradiction from reality, then we can say within our context, that we know what consciousness is. If we cannot apply it without contradiction, then we cannot applicably know consciousness within our distinctive context.

What can be concluded is that a contradiction of terms within our distinctive knowledge, or "definition" in this case, means it is not distinctive knowledge. It is a mere belief. And if one cannot apply that definition to reality without a contradiction, it is not applicable knowledge, just a mere applicable belief.

we can know will by application. — Philosophim

But we can't know it through deduction.

Deduction does not prove something to be true. — Philosophim

Would that mean you agree that deduction cannot adequately describe ontology/conscious existence? Otherwise deduction does indeed provide for a priori truth values.

As long as reality does not contradict knowledge, then it is rational to hold such a viewpoint as being the best fit for what is true. — Philosophim

Using deduction, reality contradicts consciousness and consciousness contradicts reality.

First, consciousness must be defined. Is is the consciousness of the poets, the consciousness of science, or something else entirely? — Philosophim

All of the above, including all such tenants of philosophical idealism.

If we cannot apply it without contradiction, then we cannot applicably know consciousness within our distinctive context. — Philosophim

Deductive logic has taught us consciousness cannot be explained. Hence, it's logically impossible yet it still exists. Just like any self-referential proposition creating contradiction, paradox and incompleteness.

Think of it this way Philosophim, if you could explain conscious logically in principle, you would be living in a different world. Or perhaps more importantly, you would be considered in many ways transcendent, meaning your knowledge and understanding would be outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

But we can't know it through deduction. — 3017amen

Knowing by application is knowing by deduction. I would read parts 2, 3, and 4 if you want to understand it all. Part1 is only a primer, and is only a small portion of the argument. Don't worry, they're all about the same length.

Would that mean you agree that deduction cannot adequately describe ontology/conscious existence? — 3017amen

No, deduction can adequately describe ontology or conscious existence without issue. It is all about defining it, then applying it.

All of the above, including all such tenants of philosophical idealism. — 3017amen

But these are actually different definitions of consciousness within different contexts. Again, you'll need to read through part 3.

Deductive logic has taught us consciousness cannot be explained. — 3017amen

How is this so? Perhaps if you show me, I will be able to explain it within the terms I've put forward.

But if you wouldn't mind, please read the rest 3017Amen. With this theory, I can answer virtually any knowledge question you ever ask.

, deduction can adequately describe ontology or conscious existence without issue. It is all about defining it, then applying it. — Philosophim

Then please explain using logico deductive reasoning; driving while daydreaming and being in a coma, living yet not living.

How is this so? — Philosophim

When you explain the aforementioned you will have the answer.

Then please explain using logico deductive reasoning; driving while daydreaming and being in a coma, living yet not living. — 3017amen

Certainly. I will use the terms in the paper. Please feel free to critique and ask questions if something does not make sense.

When using subjective deduction, we realize that if we applicably know one thing, we can use that as a basis for greater knowledge. The most simple example of this is math. As we applicably know that numbers are deduced by discrete experience, they follow the logic of discrete experience. So if I know that I can create "an" identity, or the number one, then I can also create 2 identities, and examine the logic between the two.

Recall the point in which we can examine a field of grass, a blade of grass, or even a portion of the grass as a discrete experience. What this lets us do is affirm that if I create an identity of one blade of grass, and another blade of grass together in my mind, I now have 2 blades of grass. With this logic, I can build algebra, calculus, and all other math.

This applies to knowledge outside of math as well. Let us apply this to driving.

So first, I need the distinctive knowledge within a specific context of what "driving" is. As you can see here, the term, "Driving" has evolved over the years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving So we don't want to take the term used in the 1800's, but the term used today.

Now because you are also chatting with me, we both have to agree on the context of the word as well. So we must both be happy with this definition before we try to apply it. I will propose the definition, feel free to add or detract from it in your reply.

Lets start with driving as, "steer, guide, navigate" in regards to a motor vehicle. The vehicle in this case is a car. We will also now need a few other definitions. Consciousness, and daydreaming. Consciousness can be defined as our personal awareness and agency. I can consciously think about the words I'm typing, wondering if the word "expeditious" is spelled correctly. The unconscious happens outside of my awareness or focus. For example, I don't think about where the letters that make up "is" resides on the keyboard anymore, and I type it without thinking about it at all.

Of course, maybe that's not fully conscious, or unconscious. Because there are other aspects of the body that I have no agency over at all. I cannot will my digestion to alter, or my kidneys to do a better or worse job of filtration. Some might call this unconscious, but perhaps a better term would be "autonomous". These are functions that are outside of our conscious capability.

Ok, with this established we can more clearly state that consciousness is our agency, and unconscious actions happen outside of our agency, but we could put our focus on them and regain conscious control over them at any time.

That's the first definition. We are going to use that to build into daydreaming, so make sure consciousness is well defined for you first. Now daydreaming is a state of emulated sensory imagination. It is interesting, because we do not have to have conscious focus on our senses at all times. Many times I find I am not conscious of the temperature, or seeing what is in front of my face. Basically this becomes an "unconscious" (as defined here) process.

There is usually the implicit notion that when daydreaming, we are consciously aware of it. For all we know, daydreams and processes are constantly firing in our head, and we are only aware of them when we focus on them. But regardless, I think for your purposes you would like daydreaming to be the conscious focus. If we daydream an emulation of something visual, we tend to focus our consciousness away from what is in front of our eyes. At least, I do. At this point our visual processing becomes unconscious.

Back to driving. Can we drive unconsciously? Yes. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sleepless-in-america/200812/can-people-drive-while-asleep
There are several instances of people driving while sleep walking. As literal "daydreaming" as you can get! At this point, the consciousness has no awareness or control, so it must be that the person is driving unconsciously.

With all of these definitions and bits of applicable knowledge set up, now we just piece them together in a way that avoids a contradiction.

1. We applicably know people can drive while sleeping, so people can drive unconsciously.
2. We distinctively know the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness.
3. If a person is daydreaming, we assume their consciousness if focussed on that daydream.
4. If their consciousness is not focused on driving, yet they are still driving, it must be they are driving unconsciously.
5. If they wreck while daydreaming as stated above, then they wrecked while driving unconsciously. Their unconscious driving failed to handle the challenges of the road.
6. There is no contradiction in having one's consciousness focused elsewhere while the unconscious mind processes other functions.
7. Therefore there is no contradiction if a person crashes while daydreaming.

There's your start! So feel free to break it down and show where we have disagreements. Appreciate the conversation as always 3017Amen!

I was giving an example in which a person believes they can win, but
knows they likely will not. — Philosophim

Yes you can. I can buy a lottery ticket believing that I will win, but with the knowledge that I probably will not. — Philosophim

First I want to point out these are descriptions of two very different scenarios. The belief that one can win, but knows it is likely they will not, is a description of two beliefs (one a belief classed as knowledge, that do not contradict each other. The belief that one WILL win despite one's knowledge of the odds, is completely different.

I'm afraid I am not going to read a long essay or series of essays online. If you prefer not to respond to people who won't read the paper, I'll understand.

If one has knowledge X, one believes knowledge X based on criteria that your and or others have decided are rigorous enough to class the conclusion as knowledge.

I cannot know that the sun is one star amongst many and not also believe that.

We can, of course, hold more than one belief, and these can be contradictory.

But if I know the odds are very low I will win the lottery, I belief that.
I may also believe that I will win, based on gut feelings.

IOW I may be in a state of cognitive dissonance, unable to reconcile beliefs that contradict each other.

But one cannot sum me up, then, as simply believing I will win. I also believe, based on my criteria for knowing that I have very little chance, that it is unlikely I will win.

UNLESS....I also believe that the odds are very low but I am psychic OR the lottery is fixed. Then the beliefs do not contradict each other. Though I would then quibble that 'the odds are low' in this specific scenario and any special third belief that affects my thinking needs to be mentioned in the scenario description.

But I can neither be summed up as just believing I will win nor as just believing it is unlkely I will win. I must be described as having two beliefs that contradict eachother.

For example, it makes no sense for me to say, I know it is raining, but I don't believe it is raining.

First I want to point out these are descriptions of two very different scenarios. The belief that one can win, but knows it is likely they will not, is a description of two beliefs (one a belief classed as knowledge, that do not contradict each other. The belief that one WILL win despite one's knowledge of the odds, is completely different. — Coben

Correct. One can have knowledge, but believe that knowledge is wrong. One cannot both know, and not know the same thing. One cannot believe, and not believe the same thing. But one can know something, and believe their knowledge to be wrong. This is what you were to pull out of the example.

Knowledge is a logical process that must follow certain path, and arrives at deductive conclusions. A belief is simply a wish or desire that something is a particular way. I can believe whatever I want. But what I can know is based on a logical process and deductive conclusion. Part 4 goes into inductions, the specific kinds of beliefs like probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational beliefs. There I analyze what each entails, examples of when it is used, and the soundness of them.

I'm afraid I am not going to read a long essay or series of essays online. If you prefer not to respond to people who won't read the paper, I'll understand. — Coben

That is fair. This OP is about those essays though. I would wonder why you would post if you aren't going to read the theory though. I can't imagine arguing about a theory I have no knowledge of.

I define knowledge and beliefs a very particular way using logic from the base up. As such, I'm going to use those terms here. You may find the reads enjoyable. I have never had a single person able to prove these essays conclusions as wrong. In fact, I use this method of knowledge within my day to day. Just a small background if you are concerned it is amateur, I have a master's in philosophy, and I program for a living today. I am no intellectual slouch, or naive. It does not mean my argument is correct, only that it is likely worth your time to read.

Each is about the length of part 1. Part 1 is basic, and does not vary much from the conclusions of many other epistemologists. Part 2 is where you'll see a new way of looking at knowledge. Part 3 and 4 are mostly expanding upon the conclusions of part 2, and are only needed if there are further questions.

Correct. One can have knowledge, but believe that knowledge is wrong. — Philosophim

Though one would also believe it was true. Knowledge is a kind of belief. You can't say I know that the earth revolves around the sun but I don't believe it. That is not a complete description. You also believe it. You would be in a state of cognitive dissonence.

One cannot believe, and not believe the same thing — Philosophim

It's an incomplete description at best. I can believe X and not X, though. I can believe that I will graduate college, that since I am managing my courses well, have been complimented by my professors, but also have a belief that I am a failure and won't manage. One can, and I have had, such contradictory beliefs, and then also not just about me, but about statements about the world.

A belief is simply a wish or desire that something is a particular way. — Philosophim

A belief is something one believes. And we often form beliefs through perfectly good non-conscous processes but which we have not done formally and consciouslly. We form beliefs through all sorts of processes some rigorous others not and both rigorous processes and not rigorous ones are fallible.

Knowledge is a logical process that must follow certain path, and arrives at deductive conclusions. — Philosophim

Deduction being one process but not the only one, even within science say.

That is fair. This OP is about those essays though. I would wonder why you would post if you aren't going to read the theory though. I can't imagine arguing about a theory I have no knowledge of. — Philosophim

It's a discussion forum, people tend to present their ideas also in discussion form and I get knowledge via that. I think the medium is best suited for those discussions, but obviously people can use the forums in a variety of ways. Yes, I am not critiquing your theory in the sense that I am not critiquing your papers. But even in your presentation I see assertions that I can interact with. Conclusions. Those are yours and I can respond to them.

Though one would also believe it was true. Knowledge is a kind of belief. — Coben

No, just because you have knowledge of something does not mean that you believe it to be true. I have knowledge of a meeting scheduled tomorrow at 5 pm. Is it true that the meeting will happen tomorrow at 5pm? It turns out someone cancels earlier in the day, and the meeting does not happen.

Further, you may get into discussions that seem to make perfect sense. You know what the premises and the conclusions are, but you just don't believe it to be true.

Knowledge is not a claim to truth. It is a subjective deductive process. Now if we are to have a belief that something is true, it is more likely to be truth if we use deduction, than induction. This is the way science functions. Science does not claim truth. It claims that certain theories have not been proven false yet.

And yes, knowledge is a kind of belief. As I've written here, it is a subjectively deduced belief. The paper is a quest to identify what knowledge and epistemology is. Currently within philosophy, there is no agreement. This is why it is probably best that you read the paper before continuing. Would you critique a plumber on how they are putting the sink together without first reading the instructions? If you are going to put forth the effort to have a discussion, which is a great positive btw, it would make the conversation go much smoother if you understood the terms we are discussing.

It's an incomplete description at best. I can believe X and not X, though — Coben

In a logical sense, you cannot believe both X and not X. When discussing logic, X = X 100%. If its X = 99.999999999% of X, that's not the same thing. So (Not) X = X is impossible. (Not) X = 99.999999999% of X is possible.

I can believe that I will graduate college, that since I am managing my courses well, have been complimented by my professors, but also have a belief that I am a failure and won't manage — Coben

So your following example is not a contradictory belief. You believe that you could either pass, or fail. You don't have a 100% belief that you will pass, and a 100% belief that you will fail. Believing either could occur is just fine.

Deduction being one process but not the only one, even within science say. — Coben

Now this is outside of the paper. What other form of knowledge do we have besides deduction? This may also help me bring the paper terms into some other context. After all, I don't want to write the whole thing again in our discussion. =P

Yes, I am not critiquing your theory in the sense that I am not critiquing your papers. — Coben

Again, you are critiquing how I am building a sink, telling me "the pipes don't go that way" when you don't have the instructions in front of you. Now if you read the instructions and inform me I am incorrect, that can work just fine.

It would be nice too. I have a slight burden here. I've never been able to find anyone who can prove my theory wrong. Trust me, this is not through lack of trying. If I could prove it wrong, then I would be done with it. I have tried to attack it every which way I can think of, but I just can't invalidate it. It would be of immense help if someone else would try, and perhaps point out something I'm missing.

Since you're already invested this far in the conversation, would you help me out? All told, its about as long as a philosophy journal article.

No, just because you have knowledge of something does not mean that you believe it to be true. I have knowledge of a meeting scheduled tomorrow at 5 pm. Is it true that the meeting will happen tomorrow at 5pm? It turns out someone cancels earlier in the day, and the meeting does not happen. — Philosophim

You had knowledge there was going to be a meeting and then it was cancelled. You were correct that a meeting was scheduled.

of course what we consider knowledge can turn out not to be the case. So, even tougher examples can be made. But this is example is clearly a situation where you believe that a meeting is scheduled. If you believed that all scheduled meeting will take place, that other belief caused you problems with th knowledge you, in fact, had.

And let's be even more specific: You said you had knowledge, there was a meeting scheduled. This means you arrived at this conclusion via some rigorous process. A memo was sent to all employees about the meeting. You double checked with your supervisor. You got a request from the supervisor's assistant to prepare issues in advance for the protocol, etc. All information that supports the conclusion that a meeting was schedulted.

Now if you worked for a company that schedules meetings all the time and they often or regularly are cancelled, that would affect any knowledge you have about whether it must take place.

I should add also that you are using a phrase that indicates less certainty that what one usually means when one uses the term knowledge: "had knowledge of." You also shifted to predictive knowledge, rather than, say knowledge about the world or some facet of it. One can certainly consider that knowledge, but in general that is statistical knowledge, especially when dealing with incredibly complex phenomena like a meeting: where personalities, crises, traffic,changed priorities, illness and a variety of other factors can always change outcomes.

I have problems beginning with the first sentence.

"Any discussion of knowledge must begin with beliefs.  A belief is a will, or a sureness reality exists in a particular state". 

This claim seems to be that you were born with a set of beliefs that you that you've tested to create knowledge.

'A thirteen-month old child is playing by himself on a rug. He encounters a wet-spot on the rug next to his bottle. He picks up his bottle and sucks on it. Then he rubs the wet-spot again. He shakes his bottle until several drop fall out onto the rug. He rubs his hand over the new wet-spot.' A Young Child is… (A documentary film by Barry Hampe)

In his book ‘Making Documentary Film and Reality Videos’ Hampe writes about obtaining this footage. They wanted a piece on walking and talking in toddlers. The crew simply focused their cameras on this young boy and waited for him to walk or talk. It wasn’t until they began to edit the film that they found this piece of natural learning. The child perceived a wet-spot in his environment and it aroused his curiosity. Experience leads him to associate wet-spot with bottle contents. He tested this idea and confirmed its’ correctness.

This is how knowledge-claims come into being. We wonder, we test; we store the information away for future use and testing. knowledge-claims are not created by belief-claims. Belief-claims are created as justification for knowledge-claims.

Belief-claims can be tied to objective proofs (Certainty), subjective proofs (Certitude) or no proofs at all. It's knowledge-claims that require an objective justification to be valid.

The main problem is logic as Justified True Belief (JTB).
Logic is a knowledge-claim in itself. It is an enclosed system with specific rules. Correctly follow the rules will create a logically valid conclusion, but its validity is only within that enclosed system. Logical proofs only prove logical systems, ie, the problem of self-reference.
Then there's the Gettier Problem to answer. Wikipedia has a primer on that.

This means you arrived at this conclusion via some rigorous process. — Coben

Yes, and what was that rigorous process? I lay that out in the paper.

I should add also that you are using a phrase that indicates less certainty that what one usually means when one uses the term knowledge: "had knowledge of." You also shifted to predictive knowledge, rather than, say knowledge about the world or some facet of it. — Coben

I am using knowledge as I defined in the paper. Distinctive, and applicable. Statistical knowledge would be distinctive, and its predictive claim would be an induction.

This claim seems to be that you were born with a set of beliefs that you that you've tested to create knowledge. — Megarian

No, I am not claiming you are born with beliefs. I state in the paper that beliefs are things you make. Knowledge is an attempt to figure out which beliefs match reality without contradiction. The beginning is a thought process to a particular conclusion. That sentence is not a conclusion, only a first premise I consider.

Experience leads him to associate wet-spot with bottle contents. He tested this idea and confirmed its’ correctness. — Megarian

Fantastic, I think you will like my conclusions within the paper then. I would indeed conclude that within the child's context, they had knowledge. While the described process is a witness to this behavior, my paper breaks down the process into a repeatable and verifiable process.

knowledge-claims are not created by belief-claims. — Megarian

I believe you are incorrect on this. A belief is an assertion of some kind. Knowledge occurs after you run a belief through a process. We can have very certain beliefs, but they are not knowledge. I go over this in the paper.

Belief-claims can be tied to objective proofs (Certainty), subjective proofs (Certitude) or no proofs at all. It's knowledge-claims that require an objective justification to be valid. — Megarian

Right, this can be broken down even simpler into having inductive beliefs, and deductive beliefs. What entails objective? What entails a deductive versus inductive belief? Are there certain inductive beliefs that are more reasonable to hold then others? The paper covers all of this, and I think you will be pleased at many of my conclusions.

The main problem is logic as Justified True Belief (JTB). — Megarian

In one of the many iterations of this paper, I used the Gettier problem as a starting point. I removed it because it makes the paper too long, the average person is unfamiliar with the Gettier problem, and it is ultimately unneeded to start the process. Once you read it and understand that I am not proposing JTB, feel free to use the Gettier argument as a method of refutation. I would love it if a person who has some familiarity with common epistemological theories would critique the theory after reading it.

I appreciate your contribution!