Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Actually it is commonly used in this way.
Yes, because it is commonly misunderstood/abused in that way.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Knoweldge is a "justified true belief".
Belief is not knowledge.
You can only "believe" something if you don't know.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Just because you beleive in a thing does not necessarily mean it is false.
Nobody stated as much - it is possible to believe something that is true, however it is still
not knowledge.
If you believe in a thing it is
because you do
not know it is true.
If you
knew it were true, it would be
knowledge & not mere "belief".
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Where that the case then no one would permit any beliefs, as they would all be, by definition false. Chew that one over!
Belief is, by definition,
not knowledge.
Belief implies one or more degrees of
uncertainty - to
not actually know, but merely "believe".
Knowledge implies
no degrees of uncertainty - to actually know thus what
not to "believe".
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Personally I would rather keep the two words separate but that is not the coin.
Knowledge and belief are antithetical - they should be separate.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Its as old as the hills.
At least as old as Plato's Theaetetus
But the phrase, as it comes into the modern world is Edmund Gettier's. He coined it in 1963, hardly "new age dogma". He died about a month ago. But were he alive I do not think he be happy with your idiotic dismissal.
It's new age branded & indeed "old" as it is the same old underlying problem: trying to pass not-knowledge as knowledge.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Some might, but then you might claim knowledge that Trump won the election or that COVID is a conspiracy. People claim false knoweldge and there are soime people modest enough to say their knowledge is belief.
A person can not state their "knowledge" is "belief" without being completely ignorant of what knowledge even is.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
No it is not.
Why would you think that? Or do you just beleive it?
I already explained this above.
Belief implies one or more degrees of uncertainty.
Knowledge implies no degrees of uncertainty.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
gibberish.
Yes "justified true belief" is gibberish, I agree.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
What you beleive is of no significance!!
You don't know shit!
You should look in the mirror and tell that to yourself - it applies to you.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Word salad.
Is English not your first language?
Project much? You literally can not even spell the word "believe".
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm
Yes, happily - answer: most of what you think and write it seems.
You didn't answer the question. Try re-reading it.
DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm
no this is way off base
As FYI: what you wrote following is what is "way off base".
DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm
Adam didn't know evil until he experienced it...
Evil is not a thing that
can be "known" - that is the whole point of never "believing" to know it (ie. eating from the tree).
At
best, one can only "believe" to know such universal absolutes as so-called "good & evil" (as an all-knowing god would know).
At
worst, one ends up "believing"
the polar opposite of what is true such to "believe" evil is good / satan is god.
That is what happens to ignorant people who "believe" to know good and evil: they eventually conflate/confuse them.
Islam is a/the best example of this: to "believe" a genocidal warlord is the greatest model for all humanity for all time.
In reality, a genocidal warlord is the
worst model for all of humanity for all of time.
Again: evil is in "believing"
the polar opposite of what is true.
DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm
therefore he didn't have to believe and trust that what he was experiencing is evil. but, he was informed the truth before hand of what was good and evil for him.
so it required faith, believe and or trust, in the one who informed him to not experience evil. but once he experienced what was evil for him there is no faith (belief/trust) required to know what was evil for him in the circumstance at that time.
its as simple as that.
This is all "way off base", the very same you accused mine of being.
I suspected you were projecting (Cain, tiller of the soil: to draw from one's own nature).
DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm
you receive a check for something you're selling you trust when you deposit that check you will be credited money for it, once the check clears, you don't have to trust to receive the money any more. once you experience, you know, and belief and trust are not required for what you have experienced.
I agree with the example/premise however do not see it relating to Adam.
God was testing whether or not Adam could consciously account for his own actions.
He couldn't as he blamed both the woman and god "it's this woman that you gave me!".
Blaming others for one's own actions is the "evil" Adam could not see within himself.
This is elaborated by Cain who was a tiller of the soil - he drew from his own nature.
People who can not account for what is inside of themselves have an unconscious tendency to project & scapegoat the same onto others.
Muhammad did this as he pathologically accused "Jews" of absolutely everything he was himself guilty of (rendering Muhammad the real "Jew").