Knowledge v/s Belief
According to the conversation, the main distinction between belief and knowledge lies in the validity of the claim. Therefore, while belief can be debatable and controversial, knowledge stands to be irrefutable. Belief therefore can be true or false i.e. people may choose to agree or disagree with a proposed belief, however knowledge is universally accepted. In that sense, knowledge can be defined as universally accepted belief, which therefore makes it indisputable.
This distinction is important when considering conviction. Although personal beliefs could make a man convinced they are not enough to convince all people. People with knowledge however can lead to influencing other people and convincing them of the same by providing empirical evidence. Conviction based on belief often lacks evidence and stems mainly from personal opinion which may not be shared universally. For e.g. Scientists believe that the universe was created by the big bang, however others believe it was created by God. An e.g. of knowledge would be that all matter is made up of molecules, as this is a claim that no one would refute.
Conviction based on belief would include hopes such as "I believe that India will win the ICC t-20 World Cup", and would combine aspiration to form this form of feverous conviction. Given the nature of this conviction it is unlikely that many would choose to dispute it considering the strength of conviction; this however cannot be considered to be conviction based on knowledge.
Conviction based on knowledge would be less emotionally inclined, relating to things like "I know that the school has 1000 students", as this can be easily supported by the statistics and registration figures from the school. Although people may be tempted to argue these figures, the empirical evidence provided would make it quite an insoluble argument.
The problem that lies with conviction based on belief is psychological by nature. People with strong belief will refuse to be convinced of any other form of argument regardless of whether there is substantial evidence, and often their arguments may be based on purely emotional grounds. This form of conviction often makes other arguments null and void because of the fervour with which they are expressed and have the power of influencing a large number of people. An example of this lies in the now common belief that stemmed from the attacks of 9/11 that all Muslims are terrorists. Although this is conviction based on belief, it has no knowledge involved in it, except for the fact that the man behind the attacks was a Muslim. Despite this, the conviction with which this belief was expressed resulted in a large part of the global audience becoming convinced of the same.
Alternatively conviction based on knowledge can alter conviction based on belief, as knowledge is constantly evolving and changing. Often, two pieces of knowledge may contradict each other and could effectively destroy any opinion that an individual may formulate. E.g. India won a string of cricket matches under the captaincy of Ajay Jadeja. Alternatively, Jadeja was found to be guilty of match fixing. This is where a knowledge based argument may break down, and introduce the circular argument as to whether India really did "win" those matches, again, knowing what the definition to "win" is. This form of conviction can also therefore be erroneous if the complete knowledge about the issue in question remains unknown. In this sense, conviction based on partial or incomplete knowledge may be as misleading as conviction based on belief.
According to the conversation, the main distinction between belief and knowledge lies in the validity of the claim. Therefore, while belief can be debatable and controversial, knowledge stands to be irrefutable. Belief therefore can be true or false i.e. people may choose to agree or disagree with a proposed belief, however knowledge is universally accepted. In that sense, knowledge can be defined as universally accepted belief, which therefore makes it indisputable.
This distinction is important when considering conviction. Although personal beliefs could make a man convinced they are not enough to convince all people. People with knowledge however can lead to influencing other people and convincing them of the same by providing empirical evidence. Conviction based on belief often lacks evidence and stems mainly from personal opinion which may not be shared universally. For e.g. Scientists believe that the universe was created by the big bang, however others believe it was created by God. An e.g. of knowledge would be that all matter is made up of molecules, as this is a claim that no one would refute.
Conviction based on belief would include hopes such as "I believe that India will win the ICC t-20 World Cup", and would combine aspiration to form this form of feverous conviction. Given the nature of this conviction it is unlikely that many would choose to dispute it considering the strength of conviction; this however cannot be considered to be conviction based on knowledge.
Conviction based on knowledge would be less emotionally inclined, relating to things like "I know that the school has 1000 students", as this can be easily supported by the statistics and registration figures from the school. Although people may be tempted to argue these figures, the empirical evidence provided would make it quite an insoluble argument.
The problem that lies with conviction based on belief is psychological by nature. People with strong belief will refuse to be convinced of any other form of argument regardless of whether there is substantial evidence, and often their arguments may be based on purely emotional grounds. This form of conviction often makes other arguments null and void because of the fervour with which they are expressed and have the power of influencing a large number of people. An example of this lies in the now common belief that stemmed from the attacks of 9/11 that all Muslims are terrorists. Although this is conviction based on belief, it has no knowledge involved in it, except for the fact that the man behind the attacks was a Muslim. Despite this, the conviction with which this belief was expressed resulted in a large part of the global audience becoming convinced of the same.
Alternatively conviction based on knowledge can alter conviction based on belief, as knowledge is constantly evolving and changing. Often, two pieces of knowledge may contradict each other and could effectively destroy any opinion that an individual may formulate. E.g. India won a string of cricket matches under the captaincy of Ajay Jadeja. Alternatively, Jadeja was found to be guilty of match fixing. This is where a knowledge based argument may break down, and introduce the circular argument as to whether India really did "win" those matches, again, knowing what the definition to "win" is. This form of conviction can also therefore be erroneous if the complete knowledge about the issue in question remains unknown. In this sense, conviction based on partial or incomplete knowledge may be as misleading as conviction based on belief.
4 comments:
I don't know about 'universally acceptable' because there are millions of people in places so inaccessible that it is not possible to put the proposition to them to establish whether they do accept it.
Why can't I go on seeing your original while I'm commenting? I don't like equating 'God made the world' (for which there is no evidence) with 'the big bang created the world', for which there is a lot of evidence in doppler shifts and so on. (Assuming that you mean that the big bang EVENTUALLY created the world, of course)
was that intended to be 'feverish' or was there some other word which 'feverous' is driving at. I offer this very humbly, having only got 55% in my English language GCSE and being aware that I am addressing someone who scored more than that...
People (if any) with knowledge.
I wonder about the molecules. Most religious developments leave a disgruntled remnant behind them, but in science, although the main protagonist of a discarded belief has often been noted to be in denial over its disproof he rarely attracts any following. This notion might be explored in an extended essay, asking whether the phenomenon is evidence of the superiority of scientific over other branches of knowledge.
Is your comment about India winning the 20/20 evidence of extra sensory perception or, as I suspect, an example of the area of Santa's sack inside the section of truth but not inside the area 'knowledge'. A true belief, but not justified.
You're right about emotional grounds. Suddenly I feel happier about linking denial to TOK. It's one of several cases where I feel that the Books and schemes of work have missed an important point. What they say about knowledge and emotion is wishy washy compared with issues of commitment, fanaticism and denial. In turn I am (emotionally) confirmed in my suspicion that TOK is mainly a series of pious notions manufactured for use in polite, university-intellectual-chic discussions among progressives, whereas it ought to be about what we'll die for (a category of things rather smaller than those we are prepared to bet on?) As I am unlikely to be called upon to die for any proposition, and quite prepared to do a Galileo if I am, I can say this without much fear, except that I might be turning into some kind of philosophical Fagin for politically incorrect causes.
Commenting on all the things in this blog is sufficiently time-consuming in itself without writing a piece and then discovering that it is the fourth time I've commented on the same posting. I am however struck by the fact that I saw other things in your post the first time I read it than I did the last time.
Is there any procedure in the blog to warn me when I'm one of the people who have already replied?
Post a Comment