Timeline for What is the difference between knowledge and belief?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2019 at 12:43 | comment | added | user20253 | Like the OP's your chart does not contain a quadrant for knowledge but covers just four types of belief. You equate 'rational belief' with knowledge but in this case why call it 'rational belief'? We all have many rational beliefs that are not knowledge. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 14:32 | comment | added | Lucas | @MichaelDorfman No, that can't be right. Otherwise it would say "knowledge" at the bottom right. I think its correctly interpreted with disbelief associated with a credence of 0.5 (I would personally reserve this label for a credence of 0) and belief with a credence of 1. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 14:07 | comment | added | alanf | Karl Popper didn't say that we don't have knowledge, just that all knowledge is conjectural. He also said that knowledge is not a kind of belief. See, for example, "Objective Knowledge" or "Realism and the Aim of Science". | |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 18:51 | comment | added | Michael Dorfman | @fireeyedboy: OK, now I think I get what you did there. I was interpreting the horizontal axis as running (as I said above) from no evidence concerning a given proposition (on the left) to strong evidence (on the right). It seems that you intended it to go from strong evidence against a proposition (on the left) to strong evidence for a proposition (on the right), presumably passing through "no evidence" in the middle somewhere. Is that correct? | |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 18:16 | comment | added | Decent Dabbler | @MichaelDorfman: if there is overwhelming evidence for a proposition and you are still inclined to disbelief that proposition: that is irrational. If there is no evidence for a proposition and you are inclined to disbelief that proposition: that is rational. | |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 16:31 | comment | added | Michael Dorfman | @bwkaplan: Sorry, I'm still not getting that. If the person below the line disbelieves regardless of evidence, their disbelief is irrational and independent of evidence (by definition.) It still seems to me that this graphic would make more sense if we reversed the bottom two labels; then we have a vertical axis running from disbelief to belief (bottom to top), and a horizontal axis running from no evidence to a plenitude of evidence (left to right). | |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 14:50 | comment | added | user678 | @MichaelDorfman, No, you're not reading the sign correctly. Assume the person below the axis disbelieves regardless of evidence; their disbelief is rational to the extent there is no corroborating evidence, and their disbelief is irrational comensurate with the amount of evidence supporting that view. | |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 12:12 | comment | added | Michael Dorfman | Shouldn't the two labels on the bottom be reversed? If one gains corroborating evidence, one would go from irrational to rational, not the reverse. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 18:09 | comment | added | Decent Dabbler | @Mitch: It's my own actually. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 17:51 | comment | added | Mitch | What's the source of that picture? | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 17:17 | history | edited | Decent Dabbler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Substituted diagram for what I think is a slightly better one
|
| Sep 18, 2011 at 15:51 | history | edited | Decent Dabbler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added diagram depicting the approximate location of where knowledge resides on the scales of (ir)rational (dis)belief compared against the amount of corroborating evidence
|
| Sep 18, 2011 at 13:51 | history | edited | Decent Dabbler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2011 at 13:38 | history | answered | Decent Dabbler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |