Do you have any examples of someone knowing a statement without believing the statement?

I can’t think of an example of knowledge of a statement requiring belief of a statement, no.

Obviously I experienced, hence now possess the knowledge, that to me a query has been presented. What can you tell me about what I had to believe in order for me to know about that experience?

You believe you're not imagining or hallucinating the device you're seeing my words on. You believe that arrangement of pixels isn't appearing on your screen by random chance. You believe I'm not a monkey randomly typing letters which just happen to spell out grammatically intelligible English sentences. And, most obviously, if you're saying you know a query has been presented to you, you believe a query has been presented to you.

Oh. Well, damn. So if you have the power to tell me what I must have believed, does that mean you know what it is that I must have believed? What do you believe in order to know what to tell me I must believe? Please don’t tell me you must believe the same things I must; that just ain’t gonna fly.

If you just mean it only makes sense to you that in order for me to know something I must first believe something but you’re not sure what it is I have to believe, or it really doesn’t matter what it is I have to believe, then you have no warrant whatsoever to claim I need to believe anything.

I suppose it’s only fitting, given those conditions, that because I know my mother raised me I have no choice but to believe I had a mother that I know raised me.

I believe I’m not imagining….. Why not just, you know…not imagine? If I believe I’m not imagining, what tells me I am or I am not? That I believe I’m not imagining does not in itself negate the possibility that I am. Quite the Keystone Cops drill you got goin’ on there, bud. Thankfully, Mother Nature saw fit to make human cognition rather more efficient than that.

Or….I believe She did, I mean.

you said you know that a query to you was presented. Do you not believe that a query to you was presented?

I said I know a thing. Why would you ask if I believe the very same thing I said I know?

The only way to answer you question is if I’d said I believe a statement had been presented, which I could than have answered in the affirmative.

“Do you still beat your wife”-type entrapment is “…beneath the dignity of philosophy…”

I don't understand why you're reacting like that. This kind of question is literally what is meant by the statement "belief is required for knowledge". There's no reason for you to get testy about it or say it's like "do you still beat your wife?" It's nothing like that. Either you believe it or you don't.

It's not an insult. I'm not insulting you. Are you perceiving it like an insult?

Again, "knowledge requires belief", as a statement, literally means if you know x, you must believe x. There's nothing insulting about me asking you that, it's entirely pertinent to the question and I would really like it if you could talk to me without getting heated about this entirely inoffensive question.

I'm not insulting you. Are you perceiving it like an insult? — flannel jesus

I judge it to be an insult to proper philosophy.

…."do you still beat your wife?" It's nothing like that. — flannel jesus

It’s exactly like that, insofar as if I say yes, I believe a query has been made, than my knowledge of it appears predetermined and I’ve contradicted myself, and if I say no I don’t believe the query has been made leaves open the catastrophic descension into that pitiful sophism, you can’t know what you don’t believe.

Are we done here?

insofar as if I say yes, I believe a query has been made, than my knowledge of it appears predetermined and I’ve contradicted myself, and if I say no I don’t believe the query has been made leaves open the catastrophic descension into that pitiful sophism, you can’t know what you don’t believe. — Mww

First of all, do you beat your wife questions have the SAME implication if the answer is yes or no, not different implications. "Yes" means I do now and I used to. "No" means I don't now but I used to. Both answers imply "I used to beat my wife."

But my question I asked you doesn't have that. There's not any implication that remains constant with both answers.

And it's not an insult to philosophy, that's ridiculously melodramatic. It's the natural next question. You said you think knowledge doesn't require belief. I asked you for an example of knowledge without belief. You gave me the example of you knowing this, OF COURSE I'm going to ask you if you believe it. That's what happens next. That's just the script.

Instead of worrying about how much you dislike the consequences of the answer yes, or the answer no, why don't you just answer honestly? Avoiding asking an entirely philosophically pertinent question because you don't like the consequences of your answer is more of an insult to philosophy than anything else going on here. I don't want to insult you, I didn't intend for the conversation to be this hostile and I'm honestly quite flabbergasted that a completely innocuous question led to this, but if we're going to be throwing around melodramatic statements like "insult to philosophy", let's get real.

It's my understanding that the most basic definition of "belief" is just "something you take to be true."

So if the question is, "can you have knowledge without belief?", you can rephrase it as, "Can you know something if you don't take it to be true?"

Can you?

Well, you’re just too smart for me.

I just think it's the next natural question lol. You said it was an example of knowledge without belief. There's nothing hostile or insulting or anti philosophical for me asking the next natural question, which is, do you believe this thing you said you know?

There's literally not an ounce of hostility in that. It's a pretty straight forward question, it's not a trick.

Does not matter to me how many conjunctions are necessary.

I'm certain that my fridge will be there when I go grab a yogurt.

Unshakably. Absolutely. Certitude is worth keeping. It's temperance and judgment that need honed. In other words, sometimes it is wise to not expect a pattern to continue. Not all. — creativesoul

I have noted that in practical terms, this is a fine way to go about your life. But in fine-grained discussions It just doesn't survive as far as I'm concerned. There is nothign direct about a route that changes not only direction, but form, multiple times - whether it's temporal, geographical or conceptual *shrug*. I share your certitude because it works better, not because I actually think that certainty is warranted. Statistics are great indicators, but not guarantee-ers.

But I think that there are empirical facts of the matter.

Direct awareness, knowledge, and belief are distinct, but given the need for evolutionary progression, I cannot agree with claiming that they are independent. — creativesoul

For me an empirical fact is something that can be directly observed. That said, I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I agree that, in the sense that everyone is aware of things, believes things and knows things that awareness, believing and knowing cannot be completely independent.

My point is that we can be aware of a particular thing without believing or knowing anything about that thing, we can believe a particular thing without being aware of or knowing anything about that thing, and we can know how to do something without believing anything or being aware of doing the thing. Of course, we do have to be aware of what we are doing when we are learning to do something. I think it really comes down to how you want to think about it. There is not just one correct way.

Do you mean Chet has managed to escape before being burnt by the fire, together with the stick? — Alkis Piskas

It's a possibility, although for all we know he may already have felt he was burned.

"Knowledge" is a very funny word. People try to formalize it in all sorts of weird ways, but I think most people, when they say they "know" something, mean pretty much the same thing as "I believe it, and I'm really really really confident of my belief."

It can't go unnoticed how various people "know" things that contradict what other people "know" as well. Some people know that Jesus is King, other people know Muhammad was the last prophet, other people know Krishna is the eighth avatar of Vishnu.

So if we just look at how the word "know" is used, it's used to refer to extreme confidence (or even extreme faith). It's just a privileged type of belief, privileged specifically by the person with that belief such that they place it above beliefs they have that they don't call "knowledge". — flannel jesus

Exactly! I agree and THAT is my point.

I like your additions to the concepts.

You presumably don't know that...
There is no knowledge!
— Chet Hawkins — Banno

Admittedly true. But I am self confessed as 'knowledge is only belief', and sadly I DO believe it is ONLY belief.

That is to say I believe it is impossible to be objectively correct. It is critically important NOT to prevaricate/equivocate by saying 'I am being objective' AS IF you are perfect. Nope!

The correct statement (to me) is 'We cannot know anything so much as we know that knowing requires perfection and what is considered knowledge is therefore only belief'.

,

But I am self confessed as 'knowledge is only belief', and sadly I DO believe it is ONLY belief. — Chet Hawkins

Again, the difference between the stuff you know and the stuff you merely believe is that hte stuff you know is true.

we know that knowing requires perfection — Chet Hawkins

No, it requires truth.

People don't communicate -truth itself-, they communicate their beliefs about the things they think are true. — flannel jesus

Yes, precisely. And more to the point, for me, is ... we should all stop LYING to each other about 'knowing'. These false pretenses are doing us great harm. And we claim to be lovers of wisdom.

I have social issues every time I HONESTLY say, I am not 100% certain guys, but I am fairly sure this is true ...' because socially ... idiots ... respond much better to certainty. The driving need for certainty is other people's foolish fear.

Fear as an emotion is rooted in the need for comfort and certainty. And certainty is absurd. Sp, by pandering to that fear, we cause more problems than we really solve. Fear is always, when served in this fashion, a cowardly short-cut to wisdom, to truth, that is a lie, a delusion, an immoral mistake.

If knowledge requires perfection, by which I take you to mean certainty, can I not be certain that I am presently sitting in my house at the computer typing this and looking out my window at the forest adjacent to my house with one of my dogs at my side and the other I know not where?

The former is a subset of the latter. Different people/groups have different reasons for saying this batch of beliefs over here, they've got promise or they sure seem to be working so far or they fit X and Y really well and those over there don't fit it so well and those over there we can't make sense of to even tell. — Bylaw

Exactly. And if we are purveyors of wisdom, or even something as unknown as 'truth', we are obliged to at least try to point that out. In fact some people's believing a thing is more evidence that it is untrue than that it is true. And they are the type to use the words 'know', 'fact', and 'certain' all the time.

My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs. I have used that exact terminology dozens of times.

And to those that erroneously believe there is so much of a difference, you can easily sample 100 people on a reasonably complex issue and you WILL get 100 different nuances of what they consider the 'facts' to be.

Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces.

Some folk (@Chet Hawkins?) will say that there are no true statements. But it is true that you are reading this. — Banno

There can be accidentally true statements. But knowing is delusional as a base. This is along the lines of a broken clock is still right twice daily.

And these games are fun, but missing the point in part.

It is not really the real me that is reading this. It is a subjective interpretation of me that I am projecting currently onto the real me. Symbols meet my eyes and the brain seizes on how my agenda can be furthered in response. Is that reading? You tell me!

There can be accidentally true statements. — Chet Hawkins

So you are saying it is true that there can be accidentally true statements?

Or is that also an accidental truth?

Think a bit further. If you say you believe something, then you say that you believe it to be true.

You cannot get by without truth.

↪Chet Hawkins,
But I am self confessed as 'knowledge is only belief', and sadly I DO believe it is ONLY belief.
— Chet Hawkins
Again, the difference between the stuff you know and the stuff you merely believe is that hte stuff you know is true. — Banno

Again, no that is wrong.

True is being misused. What is your level of granularity for truth? For me it is absolute and it SHOULD morally be treated as such. Until that is believed, NOT known, people will continue to erroneously profess knowing and make foolish dogmatic stands when there is room for discussion.

I can believe many things whose truth is unknowable, whether they are actually objectively true or not.

Truth is accessible but NOT knowable. That means we sit in a realm of truth and we are incapable of knowing. We are indeed only capable of believing. Truth INFORMS belief. Knowledge implies certainty and perfection that are not humanly obtainable.

This doggedness is a sign of order-apology, the generic conflation that order and the GOOD are synonymous, a delusion.

we know that knowing requires perfection
— Chet Hawkins
No, it requires truth. — Banno

Truth and perfection are synonymous. You could also say 'God'. But I do not prefer that delusional moniker.

Truth and perfection are synonymous. — Chet Hawkins

Well, no they are not.
But you thinking this might explain your error.

Deleted but might be updated.

There can be accidentally true statements.
— Chet Hawkins
. SIO you are saying it is true that there can be accidentally true statements?

Or is that also an accidental truth? — Banno

I am deontological in belief. If you intend something that is an accident you are still not really right. The summation of your words in the simplest sense may mean something close to truth. But the intent ruins it. That solves the quandary you are trying to break the argument with.

Think a bit further. If you say you believe something, then you say that you believe it to be true. — Banno

That has no bearing on what we are discussing, except that knowledge is the same. Ergo knowledge is only belief.

You cannot get by without truth. — Banno

In that we agree.

Truth supports the possibility of choice for delusion.

Truth and perfection are synonymous.
— Chet Hawkins
Well, no they are not.
But you thinking this might explain your error. — Banno

You claiming this with no explanation at all shows the depth of your intent or lack of it.

Perfection can only be the sum total of truth. Its effect as an extant thing, in what we call the ideal realm say, like Plato's forms, is intuited by us because we FEEL it out there. Perfection draws us to it. It causes desire.

All of truth is just and only perfection. That is distinct from true statements entirely. We tend to describe little statements that are asymptotic to truth, as truths. That is an error.

It is not really the real me that is reading this. It is a subjective interpretation of me that I am projecting currently onto the real me. — Chet Hawkins

What leads you to believe there is a "real you" over and above, beyond or apart from the you that you are familiar with?

The driving need for certainty is other people's foolish fear. — Chet Hawkins

This is certainly true, as I've recently found out in going through one commenter's religious feelings here. Their need for certainty has them forego even Empirical considerations.

I think you are correct, because both terms are subject to varying definitions, depending on the context. Philosophically, knowledge is "justified true belief"*1, which is the basis of the scientific method : verification of hypotheses. But William James*2 noted that "many people" seem to assume their beliefs are facts. Physicist David Bohm*3 echoed that insight, along with David Hume's quip about Reason being the slave of the passions. — Gnomon

Justification is not actual proof. It is only 'good enough'. This means different things to different people as you yourself just pointed out. So your own definition or the one you quoted here is clearly wrong.

Knowledge IS NOT justified belief. Knowledge is only belief that the believer believes is justified. And that difference is EPIC.

Using the word justified alone like that sounds like a much more authoritative delivery of ... probable bovine poo. It is much more honest to say it as I did.

Yet, Socrates*4, acclaimed for his wisdom, must have had that human propensity --- for equating Feelings & Beliefs with reliable Knowledge --- in mind when he said, with a touch of irony, "I know that I know nothing". Allowing for such rare exceptions to James' rule, perhaps you could tweak Hawkins' truism that "knowledge is only belief", by adding that Wisdom is tried & true Belief. :smile: — Gnomon

So-crates was wise enough to know human nature. He was accounting for it. His Apology was disingenuous.

To say you are not wise and then that you are the wisest man you can find is hilarious. I agree. But, there are ALWAYS the two perspectives (and only those two).

1. The absolute. That is the realm of perfection and truth and although it informs intent, it is unknowable. The BETTER term for knowledge is awareness. It does not imply completeness in its use as easily.
2. The relative. This is a comparative issue and can then enter into the realm of things like 'truth value' and colloquial truth. That is to say, although many and most will present 'facts' and 'knowledge' they are lying to themselves and others to say this unless they admit that these are only beliefs. Still, indeed, and perhaps this is the reason so many here want to challenge these assertions of mine incorrectly, there is the relative proximity of an assertion to unknowable truth. There are ways of testing to demonstrate that 'we are closer' or 'this path seems more promising'. But NOTHING can be more compelling as decided, as a 'conclusion', than that.