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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I wonder why it is so difficult for anyone to understand how opinions and beliefs are converted into knowledge via specific institutions or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

Here is a discussion on the issue;
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:37 am You had claimed that opinions/beliefs somehow become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. You claimed this. I'm challenging you to support the claim.

Explain how they become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. Or retract the claim.
I have already explained that a "1000" times.

Here is another example,
Supposed you as a scientist have a hunch or hypothesis thesis about some scientific theory, say THEORY-A.
That would only be your opinion or at best belief.

Then you did the necessary experiments in accordance to the scientific methods, you proved your hypothesis and your peers reconfirmed the results of your experiments and thus confirm your THEORY-A is true.
Thereafter you published the above research in a recognized scientific journals and held various press conference to announce the newly discovered knowledge.
This is the institutionalization [science] of your belief into scientific knowledge which then in independent from you and all other individuals.

Now that THEORY-A is accepted and confirmed, it is no more YOUR opinions nor belief but rather THEORY-A is a scientific truth from the scientific institution and belongs to the scientific institution.

The above is how opinions and beliefs of individual[s] become objective knowledge when they are institutionalized.

That is how all objective scientific knowledge came about as converted from personal opinions and beliefs via the scientific institution.

Get it?
Any comments on the above?

My point the the above process is the same for all institution of knowledge or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Therefore the moral FSK can convert personal opinions and beliefs into moral knowledge with the provision the necessary process of verifying and justifying the evidence empirically and philosophically.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:35 am Any comments on the above?
You and TS are defining "knowledge" differently.

He defines it as something like "things that conform to reality."

You define it as "things that have been made into a framework or institutionalized" -- presumably, whether true or not.

But if you were right, then, say, the idea that Jews and others were vermin was "German knowledge" during WW2 -- because it was massively institutionalized as a belief, and made into a whole "framework" in the propaganda and myth-making of the Third Reich. Or when women were deemed unfit to vote, you would have to say that society "knew" they were unfit, because that was the institutional practice of the time, and it fit with the framework of sex stereotypes of the day.

But I'm pretty sure TS, and anybody with half a brain or a moral fibre in his body, is going to disagree with that.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:35 am Any comments on the above?
You and TS are defining "knowledge" differently.

He defines it as something like "things that conform to reality."

You define it as "things that have been made into a framework or institutionalized" -- presumably, whether true or not.
I define knowledge as,
Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or any idea,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
in conformance with reality.
But if you were right, then, say, the idea that Jews and others were vermin was "German knowledge" during WW2 -- because it was massively institutionalized as a belief, and made into a whole "framework" in the propaganda and myth-making of the Third Reich. Or when women were deemed unfit to vote, you would have to say that society "knew" they were unfit, because that was the institutional practice of the time, and it fit with the framework of sex stereotypes of the day.

But I'm pretty sure TS, and anybody with half a brain or a moral fibre in his body, is going to disagree with that.
You missed this;

I wrote in the above, it is with the provisio,
"the provision of the necessary process of verifying and justifying the evidence empirically and philosophically"
and as usual the above must be done within a credible FSK.

The standard bearer of the highest credibility at present is the scientific framework and system [FSK].
I have claimed and argued for, my moral FSK has similar [not exactly] to the scientific FSK.

The "German knowledge" and "social knowledge re women and voting" were not processed within credible FSK thus do not have the requisite credibility.

It is the same with 'divine knowledge' e.g. God exists and others [creationism] which are processed within groundless framework and system of divinity, thus not credible at all. I am sure anybody with half a brain or rationality in his body, is going to disagree with that.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:09 am The standard bearer of the highest credibility at present is the scientific framework and system [FSK].
I have claimed and argued for, my moral FSK has similar [not exactly] to the scientific FSK.
People try that trick all the time, have you learned anything from their mistakes?
Marx argued his analysis of history was 'scientific'
The people who argue for guided evolution reckon their religious beliefs are scientific too.
Racists argue it is science that black people are less intelligent than white people.
Mysoginists believe it is science fact that women are more emotional and less rational than men and should therefore not have the vote.

You might have failed to analyse very well what it actually is that gives science credibility, you are conentrating too much on how many people agree with a scientific finding rather than how that finding actually gets its persuasive power.

But you are following a very well trodden path when you take your system of opinions and try to get some of that science cred for your not remotely scientific endeavour.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:20 pm You might have failed to analyse very well what it actually is that gives science credibility
Is it because you don't know that you aren't actually telling us what it is that gives science credibility?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:35 am I wonder why it is so difficult for anyone to understand how opinions and beliefs are converted into knowledge via specific institutions or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

Here is a discussion on the issue;
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:37 am You had claimed that opinions/beliefs somehow become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. You claimed this. I'm challenging you to support the claim.

Explain how they become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. Or retract the claim.
I have already explained that a "1000" times.

Here is another example,
Supposed you as a scientist have a hunch or hypothesis thesis about some scientific theory, say THEORY-A.
That would only be your opinion or at best belief.

Then you did the necessary experiments in accordance to the scientific methods, you proved your hypothesis and your peers reconfirmed the results of your experiments and thus confirm your THEORY-A is true.
Thereafter you published the above research in a recognized scientific journals and held various press conference to announce the newly discovered knowledge.
This is the institutionalization [science] of your belief into scientific knowledge which then in independent from you and all other individuals.

Now that THEORY-A is accepted and confirmed, it is no more YOUR opinions nor belief but rather THEORY-A is a scientific truth from the scientific institution and belongs to the scientific institution.

The above is how opinions and beliefs of individual[s] become objective knowledge when they are institutionalized.

That is how all objective scientific knowledge came about as converted from personal opinions and beliefs via the scientific institution.

Get it?
Any comments on the above?

My point the the above process is the same for all institution of knowledge or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Therefore the moral FSK can convert personal opinions and beliefs into moral knowledge with the provision the necessary process of verifying and justifying the evidence empirically and philosophically.
If we want evidence for the claim that water is H20, an appeal to the 'chemistry framework and system of knowledge' won't do. That just provides a way to describe the actual evidence, which is physical. The claim 'water is H2O because, in the chemistry FSK, water is H2O' would be laughable.

So what could constitute evidence for the moral rightness or wrongness of an action? Appealing to a 'morality FSK' won't do. The claim 'this is wrong because, in the morality FSK, it's wrong' - is laughable. What's the actual physical (empirically demonstrable) evidence?

Hint: there is none, and the question is absurd.
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: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:35 am I wonder why it is so difficult for anyone to understand how opinions and beliefs are converted into knowledge via specific institutions or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
That's not difficult to understand. What's difficult to understand is why you'd think that knowledge isn't belief. It is. Propositional knowledge is justified true belief. So knowledge isn't independent of belief. Knowledge is a qualified type of belief.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:36 pm Propositional knowledge is justified true belief.
JTB is utterly insufficient ( I keep having to demonstrate this ).

Tomorrow I may or may not die. By LEM (law of excluded middle) this statement is a trivial truism true, but true none the less.
People die all the time. People live all the time. It's an empirically justified belief.

By the JTB criterion the statement "Tomorrow I may or may not die" qualifies as "knowledge".

I don't know what knowledge is, but if it's not useful then it's not knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:09 am The standard bearer of the highest credibility at present is the scientific framework and system [FSK].
I have claimed and argued for, my moral FSK has similar [not exactly] to the scientific FSK.
People try that trick all the time, have you learned anything from their mistakes?
Marx argued his analysis of history was 'scientific'
The people who argue for guided evolution reckon their religious beliefs are scientific too.
Racists argue it is science that black people are less intelligent than white people.
Mysoginists believe it is science fact that women are more emotional and less rational than men and should therefore not have the vote.

You might have failed to analyse very well what it actually is that gives science credibility, you are conentrating too much on how many people agree with a scientific finding rather than how that finding actually gets its persuasive power.

But you are following a very well trodden path when you take your system of opinions and try to get some of that science cred for your not remotely scientific endeavour.
ditto. Skepdick's
viewtopic.php?p=507682#p507682
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:35 am I wonder why it is so difficult for anyone to understand how opinions and beliefs are converted into knowledge via specific institutions or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

Here is a discussion on the issue;
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:18 am
I have already explained that a "1000" times.

Here is another example,
Supposed you as a scientist have a hunch or hypothesis thesis about some scientific theory, say THEORY-A.
That would only be your opinion or at best belief.

Then you did the necessary experiments in accordance to the scientific methods, you proved your hypothesis and your peers reconfirmed the results of your experiments and thus confirm your THEORY-A is true.
Thereafter you published the above research in a recognized scientific journals and held various press conference to announce the newly discovered knowledge.
This is the institutionalization [science] of your belief into scientific knowledge which then in independent from you and all other individuals.

Now that THEORY-A is accepted and confirmed, it is no more YOUR opinions nor belief but rather THEORY-A is a scientific truth from the scientific institution and belongs to the scientific institution.

The above is how opinions and beliefs of individual[s] become objective knowledge when they are institutionalized.

That is how all objective scientific knowledge came about as converted from personal opinions and beliefs via the scientific institution.

Get it?
Any comments on the above?

My point the the above process is the same for all institution of knowledge or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Therefore the moral FSK can convert personal opinions and beliefs into moral knowledge with the provision the necessary process of verifying and justifying the evidence empirically and philosophically.
If we want evidence for the claim that water is H20, an appeal to the 'chemistry framework and system of knowledge' won't do. That just provides a way to describe the actual evidence, which is physical. The claim 'water is H2O because, in the chemistry FSK, water is H2O' would be laughable.
You are insulting your own intelligence with the above.

Note;
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
    Its [Water's] chemical formula is H2O, meaning that each of its molecules contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, connected by covalent bonds. Two hydrogen atoms are attached to one oxygen atom at an angle of 104.45°.
If I don't appeal to Chemistry, i.e. Chemistry-FSK [possibly aided by the Physics-FSK], then where else? from the theological-FSK?

As I had posted earlier, you are begging the question, i.e. assuming and supposing there is really really physical water.
Note I countered with Russell's 'perhaps there is no water at all'.
So what could constitute evidence for the moral rightness or wrongness of an action? Appealing to a 'morality FSK' won't do. The claim 'this is wrong because, in the morality FSK, it's wrong' - is laughable. What's the actual physical (empirically demonstrable) evidence?

Hint: there is none, and the question is absurd.
I have told you a 'million' times, "the moral rightness or wrongness of an action" has no direct relation to morality-proper.

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

How come the above cannot get into your thick skull?
As I had stated you are dogmatic as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and CAPs.

Just as water is real physical thing which is part and parcel of reality,
there are real physical moral things which are real physical thing which are part and parcel of reality which can be verified and justified to exist as real.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:35 am I wonder why it is so difficult for anyone to understand how opinions and beliefs are converted into knowledge via specific institutions or framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
That's not difficult to understand. What's difficult to understand is why you'd think that knowledge isn't belief. It is. Propositional knowledge is justified true belief. So knowledge isn't independent of belief. Knowledge is a qualified type of belief.
The point is you questioned how opinions and beliefs can be converted to knowledge when it is institutionalized.

I did not imply knowledge is not belief.

Note I have presented the continuum of opinions to beliefs to knowledge in terms of subjectivity to objectivity.
Note the continuum in terms of subjectivity to objectivity.
- opinions [high subjective] to belief [average subjective/objective] - knowledge [high objectivity].

When beliefs are institutionalized [verified and justified] within a credible FSK, they become credible knowledge.
In a way, yes, knowledge is Justified True Beliefs [with provision for Gettier].

Knowledge is beliefs qualified to an institution, i.e. FSK.
"Qualified" entailed verification and justification empirically and philosophically.
Scientific knowledge is scientific beliefs that are qualified to the scientific FSK.

So,
Moral knowledge is moral beliefs that are qualified to the moral FSK.
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: 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.
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 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.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:18 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:09 am The standard bearer of the highest credibility at present is the scientific framework and system [FSK].
I have claimed and argued for, my moral FSK has similar [not exactly] to the scientific FSK.
People try that trick all the time, have you learned anything from their mistakes?
Marx argued his analysis of history was 'scientific'
The people who argue for guided evolution reckon their religious beliefs are scientific too.
Racists argue it is science that black people are less intelligent than white people.
Mysoginists believe it is science fact that women are more emotional and less rational than men and should therefore not have the vote.

You might have failed to analyse very well what it actually is that gives science credibility, you are conentrating too much on how many people agree with a scientific finding rather than how that finding actually gets its persuasive power.

But you are following a very well trodden path when you take your system of opinions and try to get some of that science cred for your not remotely scientific endeavour.
ditto. Skepdick's
viewtopic.php?p=507682#p507682
Skepdick isn't really your ally and I continue to recommend that you don't hide behind him so much. But it's not that hard to see what I am getting at here.

You describe a sience fact as being credible if enough scientists believe it. But you have no interest in why the scientists believe it in the first place, your anlaysis of this conversion from opinion to knowledge was pretty one scientist believes a thing, then many scientists beleive the thing, then all scientists believe the thing then knowledge. And if you are allowed to force a description of science that goes that way, then you get to make anything you want a science, and any old "FSK" thing can be very much like a science.

But the experiment bit, the thing that does the persuading of the scientists... A well designed scientific experiment takes a fact about the world and tests it, without reference to opinions.

Phlogiston was never a true fact about the world, even though most scientists of the day thought it was the explanation for some important stuff about the world. the number of scientists who expected it to be found didn't make it an actual fact. Neither did any science "FSK".
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:35 am I wonder why it is so difficult for anyone to understand how ...
Have you ever considered, that maybe you have never come up with a single great insight? Not even a mediocre one. Instead, you are simply misusing every English word there is, so you can't follow others and others can't follow you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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?
Post Reply