Knowledge is a subset of belief, they say.
I do not see the logic in the statement.
Knowledge, information and communication are synonymous used in different context. Information communicated becomes knowledge received.
I explain: knowledge is like a base ball. Belief is like a glove.
Knowledge is assented or thrown and caught.
The belief glove catches the knowledge ball. It can hold as true or not.
The knowledge ball can be thrown but you do not throw the belief glove.
Knowledge is required to make a decision if it is held as true.
A glove could catch more than a baseball. A football, basketball, tennis ball could be caught by the glove. So to say, the knowledge caught may not be a true baseball. May not be correct information.
The glove belief action is onky about recieving knowledge. You do not throw the glove. Belief is not what is asserted, knowledge is assented belief is receiving the knowledge to then decide in that glove if it is held as true. The belief glove does not get asserted, the ball knowledge gets asserted thrown.
No, i do not see knowledge as a subset of belief.
Knowledge is required to form a decision of belief or not.
The ball-and-glove metaphor is an over simplification. Just because I receive a piece of information, that does not necessarily mean I have new knowledge. What is the source of that information? Is it a reliable, trusted source? If I am skeptical of the information, can I be said to have assimilated new knowledge? I think not. If the information is false, can I be said to know something new? Or am I just misinformed? I will go with the latter. Knowledge, in my book, is a cognitive state that accurately represents reality, facts, or truth.
Belief is confidence that a proposition is true with or without supporting evidence. (Belief can also imply uncertainty. Someone could say, "I believe Ukraine will be victorious," and that would be more of an expression of faith rather than of knowledge.)
There are beliefs that can be described as knowledge, because they focus on truth or facts. For instance, I might say that I believe that climate change is real. That statement is an affirmation of the work that thousands of scientists have done over many decades in collecting and analyzing millions of pieces of data, and the scientific conclusion that they have come to. In other words, I believe climate change is real because I know that climate change is real.
And then there are also beliefs that are not supported by the facts. Can these beliefs be considered knowledge? No. Calling belief in a false proposition "knowledge" weakens the whole concept of knowing. However, this will not prevent deluded people from mis-using the word "knowledge" to describe their delusion. Some people will claim to "know" things that are either verifiably false or not substantiated by any evidence. In cases like these, the people are making very poor use of language. They are misleading others into thinking that they know something verifiably true when it is either not substantiated or simply false.
In sum, knowledge is a mental representation of reality. Belief may or may not reflect reality. Belief could be characterized as a qualified subset of knowledge.
Knowledge, communication, information rather synonymous in different context.
Belief is about a choice of accepting information. Belief is very subjective. Yes, as you say belief is a subset of knowledge because belief is about an individual choice of how to handle the information.
I think to better understand, there are levels of information. We know the information we receive in its minimum information "value" form. We make decisions on how to classify the information we receive. Some information is more knowledgeable, or verified for us to use in certain ways.
Belief or disbelief is holding information true or false and our choice for holding it is our subjective choice.
Climate change is science, belief not required. There is evidence which you either choose to accept or reject. This is interpretation of current evidence available, coupled with confidence in the analysis of historic trends and future modelling rather than a belief.
Measurement, observation and repeatable results belongs to science, a word derived from Latin meaning knowledge.
People who dismiss climate change do not believe their stance as such, instead they have chosen to reject the evidence aka knowledge that has been identified using the scientific method..
@puff I hear you: acceptance of a scientific fact does not require a leap of faith, because there is evidence to back it up. But to say "I believe" does not necessarily imply a leap of faith. It can mean that I am very confident that my knowledge is correct.
Normally I would not use the word "believe" in the context of science. But I can imagine having a conversation with someone who said the don't believe the science, and I might reply that I do...and then I would start wheeling out the evidence.
@Flyingsaucesir Science does not need belief, but some faith is required. Faith that peer review is thorough for example. Faith that when "experts" talk of their research that the research has been completed etc
Before you jump in a car, you have faith the brakes still work when for that to be true knowledge, you should function test them first.
"Faith" is not a dirty word, it's just religions have highjacked it for their own purposes.
I have separated what I actually know compared to what I believe/ assume and have concluded that I actually know fuck all, a lot less than I assumed. Doesn't stop me dribbling shit though
The 'knowledge problem' has been discussed by philosophers since the ancients . . .
Knowledge is information received, processed, applied, shared, and retained.
Belief is the evolution of individual truth painted by the trillions of strokes of one's knowledge.
If this is true, then knowledge may just be a subset of belief.
Belief is accepting a statement as true. A statement of knowledge or information of some kind must be held to consider it true, or not.