Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:11 am
Thus whilst the reality remained at it was, is and will be,
the opinions and beliefs [belief-B] of that reality is converted to knowledge-K when institutionalized.
And the reality - that was, is and will be - is what we talk about when we talk about facts - features of reality that are or were the case. We've invented different ways to talk about (describe) that reality. But we didn't and don't create that reality - except in the sense that we do make things such as viruses and vaccines.

Glad to see you're abandoning the crazy idea that nothing did, does and will exist independent from humans.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:11 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:48 am
The point is you questioned how opinions and beliefs can be converted to knowledge when it is institutionalized.
Oy vey--no. You said that it becomes something other than belief. Since knowledge is a type of belief, I'm not wondering how you're saying it becomes knowledge. That wouldn't be explaining how it becomes something other than belief.
Note Gettier, when even a guess by luck could turn out to be knowledge [JTB].

Can you counter how scientists' beliefs are converted to scientific knowledge when institutionalized within the scientific FSK.
I did not imply knowledge is not belief.
Then talking about how something becomes knowledge is irrelevant to talking about how it becomes something other than belief.
Note my request above re scientists' beliefs [hypotheses] are converted to scientific knowledge.
Note I have presented the continuum of opinions to beliefs to knowledge in terms of subjectivity to objectivity.
However we choose to use the terms "subjective" and "objective," beliefs are mental phenomena. If knowledge is belief, knowledge is a mental phenomenon. That has certain upshots that are different than when something isn't a mental phenomenon.
Here is an example,

Originally various scientists has opinions and beliefs that the symptoms [on hindsight are confirmed as covid19] were caused by a virus from bats, other animals or created in a lab.
A group of scientists believed strongly [belief-B] the covid19 virus was created in a lab in China.

If sometime in the future, it is verified, justified and confirmed that the covid19 is really created in a lab in China, then, that would be confirmed knowledge [Knowledge-K] of that reality.

So can you see that belief-B is converted to knowledge-K when institutionalized [verified and justified] within the scientific community and W.H.O-FSK.

Thus whilst the reality remained at it was, is and will be,
the opinions and beliefs [belief-B] of that reality is converted to knowledge-K when institutionalized.

Get it?
I'm finally just about to resign this as hopeless.

First off, the Gettier problem, ignoring issues it has (and it has many issues in my view), doesn't even approach the vicinity of suggesting that knowledge isn't belief. You're grasping at straws there, straws which you apparently aren't very familiar with.

And scientific knowledge isn't something other than belief. So talking about scientific knowledge as if that's going to convince anyone that it's something other than belief doesn't work (assuming the person has even a 101-level familiarity with epistemology and the standard view of what knowledge is).

You're simply repeating stuff that doesn't at all work for the purpose that you want it to work for, and I can only guess this is due to not really grasping the idea that propositional knowledge is justified true belief (whether we think that the Gettier problem suggests that we need further qualifications on the justification end or not).

If you're just going to keep repeating that we attain knowledge, this is pointless, because you don't even understand the issue I'm asking you about.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:11 am
Thus whilst the reality remained at it was, is and will be,
the opinions and beliefs [belief-B] of that reality is converted to knowledge-K when institutionalized.
And the reality - that was, is and will be - is what we talk about when we talk about facts - features of reality that are or were the case. We've invented different ways to talk about (describe) that reality. But we didn't and don't create that reality - except in the sense that we do make things such as viruses and vaccines.

Glad to see you're abandoning the crazy idea that nothing did, does and will exist independent from humans.
Not too fast..
You keep forgetting I am not a philosophical realist i.e. reality is independent from humans.
On the contrary I am a anti-philosophical-realist [Kantian empirical realism].

I believe the reality - that was, is and will be is where;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476

Note the other similar threads I have raised to argue for the above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 7:11 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:52 am

Oy vey--no. You said that it becomes something other than belief. Since knowledge is a type of belief, I'm not wondering how you're saying it becomes knowledge. That wouldn't be explaining how it becomes something other than belief.
Note Gettier, when even a guess by luck could turn out to be knowledge [JTB].

Can you counter how scientists' beliefs are converted to scientific knowledge when institutionalized within the scientific FSK.

Then talking about how something becomes knowledge is irrelevant to talking about how it becomes something other than belief.
Note my request above re scientists' beliefs [hypotheses] are converted to scientific knowledge.

However we choose to use the terms "subjective" and "objective," beliefs are mental phenomena. If knowledge is belief, knowledge is a mental phenomenon. That has certain upshots that are different than when something isn't a mental phenomenon.
Here is an example,

Originally various scientists has opinions and beliefs that the symptoms [on hindsight are confirmed as covid19] were caused by a virus from bats, other animals or created in a lab.
A group of scientists believed strongly [belief-B] the covid19 virus was created in a lab in China.

If sometime in the future, it is verified, justified and confirmed that the covid19 is really created in a lab in China, then, that would be confirmed knowledge [Knowledge-K] of that reality.

So can you see that belief-B is converted to knowledge-K when institutionalized [verified and justified] within the scientific community and W.H.O-FSK.

Thus whilst the reality remained at it was, is and will be,
the opinions and beliefs [belief-B] of that reality is converted to knowledge-K when institutionalized.

Get it?
I'm finally just about to resign this as hopeless.

First off, the Gettier problem, ignoring issues it has (and it has many issues in my view), doesn't even approach the vicinity of suggesting that knowledge isn't belief. You're grasping at straws there, straws which you apparently aren't very familiar with.
Where did I say, Gettier suggest knowledge isn't belief.
I have already explained knowledge is belief when institutionalized but Gettier posed a problem with its 'certainty' which I believe can be mitigated.
And scientific knowledge isn't something other than belief. So talking about scientific knowledge as if that's going to convince anyone that it's something other than belief doesn't work (assuming the person has even a 101-level familiarity with epistemology and the standard view of what knowledge is).

You're simply repeating stuff that doesn't at all work for the purpose that you want it to work for, and I can only guess this is due to not really grasping the idea that propositional knowledge is justified true belief (whether we think that the Gettier problem suggests that we need further qualifications on the justification end or not).

If you're just going to keep repeating that we attain knowledge, this is pointless, because you don't even understand the issue I'm asking you about.
Don't be too arrogant.
The problem imo lies with you being constipated as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivist and the classical analytic philosophers.
Post Reply