Skepticos

Kim, I am greatly intrigued by your discussion of heuristic processing and the use of schemas. Since, as I read it, these topics can be found in David Hume's epistemology. Where can I find some intro literature on the topic? Thanks!

Hmmm...that makes me want to refine my working definition of *belief*: a belief is a proposition held to be correspondent to reality.

Perhaps I should not restrict the definition to experience.

- Skepticos

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]</p>

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Skepticos:

The above was a summary of a chapter in a social psychology text book. (Taylor, Peplau, and Seers, Social Psychology. Prentice Hall, 1994. ISBN 0-13-222630-8.) I imagine the same information might be provided in other basic social psychology textbooks, though I don't know how the research might have developed since 1994.

Personally, I prefer social psychology (and cognitive psychology) over other branches of psychology, because it has a more rigorous emphasis on empirical research. And I guess this just confirms the old addage, that the once great philosophical questions are being overtaken by the sciences.

I can list the recommended readings and the research papers cited if you would like, but they all look to me as though they might be heavy reading. If you want to investigate further, this field of research is called Social Cognition.

99Percent

So then what is knowledge, if not that?

Skepticos

99Percent writes:

"So then what is knowledge, if not that?"

That's a good question. For quite some time now, I have had a hard time distinguishing between belief and knowledge. I have rested on the view that *knowledge* denotes an attitude or sentiment we hold with regard to certain beliefs - an attitude or sentiment of certainty. For instance, if I see a squirrel crossing the road in broad daylight, a belief is formed regarding it ("there is a squirrel crossing that road"). Because I have seen the event, I will hold the belief with a great deal of conviction, and this sentiment is called knowledge. Knowledge merely denotes a sentiment we attach to a belief.

- Skepticos

AtlanticCitySlave

"You can't believe you saw a squirrel because you just saw it."

-"Hey Dad, I believe I saw a squirrel because I just saw it." Seems easy enough to me.

Skepticos

I agree with you AtlanticCitySlave.

I have yet to make any sense out of 99Percent's statement that seeing is not sufficient for belief. I think it smacks up hard against common sense.

My example of seeing the squirrel was designed to demonstrate the manner in which some beliefs are formed, and to show the rational process involved. My belief is formed in correspondence to my experience. I do not have to think about it, draw inferences, etc. I simply see the squirrel, and the belief-forming process is automatic. And I would consider the belief an article of knowledge since the belief is attended with a certain sentiment of certainty.

- Skepticos

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

So if I'm understanding you correctly (and feel free to correct this if I'm not) you subscribe to an empirical idea of belief, where you base the strength of your belief on evidence. Presumably, you could arrange your impressions on a spectrum of belief, with unbelief at one end, skepticism somewhere in the middle, and belief and knowledge at the other end. This is interesting, and I think, reasonably sound.

Personally, though, I would go a bit further with the definition of knowledge. As far as I see it, knowledge is a set of externalized beliefs. By "externalized", I mean shared with and validated by others. So while belief is personal and private, knowledge is public and is based on consensus.

For example, you think you saw a squirrel in such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time. That is belief. By contrast, all of us agree what sort of animal we mean when we say "squirrel", and we can come to a consensus on what a squirrel is and what it isn't. That is knowledge.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kim o' the Concrete Jungle ]</p>

DigitalDruid

Skepticos and 99Percent,
I am just wondering if the pithy "knowledge is justified belief" could serve as working definition of knowledge; belief being defined as what one holds to be true.

For example, if a person holds a belief with some justification about some aspect of a phenomenon, and another person has a different belief based on his "gut-feeling", I think it is reasonable to say that the first person is more knowledgeable than second about the phenomenon.

The usefulness of this working definition could be that it allows us to evaluate knowledge based on the 'quality' of the underlying justification - to what extent it is accurate, complete, or consistent with other knowledge that we have, etc.

For example, Aristotle believed that the tides are caused by the turbulence in the oceans caused by the movement of the earth through space. As justification, he pointed out how if we have water in a trough and shake it, waves are formed. But a modern scientist believes that tides are caused by the pull of the moon and (to some extent) and sun on the earth. The scientist would justify his belief by calculations that explain and predict tides. He would also point out that that Arstotle's justification of his belief can not explain the periodicity of the tides and other associated phenomena. So based on the quality of the justifications, it would be reasonable to say that the modern scientist is more knowledgeable than aristotle about tides.
[added the tides example]

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

If I can join the discussion with a slight curve in the approach then I would be tempted to look at what are the effects of a BELIEF. Looking at how we use belief OR how we understand belief we may have a better idea how we derive these beliefs.

At the forefront are the beliefs which cause us to think AND the beliefs which cause us to act. In my discourse thinking occurs in the head while acting occurs outside the head.

There seems to be the mundane interpretation of belief which is associated with every perception inside the head and outside the head.

It must be that the origin of a belief must come from the perceptive system, the system which provides us with perceptions. It seems to me if we have no belief in these low level perceptions then we will be unable to assess the information extant in the world outside the head. IS THIS BASIC BELIEF?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell

Sammi:

I agree that beliefs occur inside the head, while actions occur outside, though there are folks here who will disagree.

I'm not sure that I would agree with the phrase 'beliefs which cause us to act' or 'beliefs which cause us to think'.

Could you give examples of what you view as those two types of belief?

I view a 'belief' as a type of thought, and it seems odd to me to say that 'a type of thought' 'causes one to think'.

Keith.