Do you have to believe in something to know it?

[OneArmedScissor]

Just as the topic asks, do you have to believe in something to know it?

I say no, but my friend says yes.

Any input, advice or links would be helpful.

Thanks

[Turtle]

___I say no. During an Astronomy class years ago when we started learning (knowing about) the life cycle of stars, a young girl raised her hand for comment. She told the instructor - and the class - that what he was saying about stars went against her religious beliefs. His reply I simply love: "Young lady" he said, "you don't have to believe this, just learn it". :doh:

[Dark Mind]

That's awesome :doh:.

 

In response to the question: Hesitantly, no.

 

Intuition tells me so :). How else could we make scientific "discoveries" :D.

[HydrogenBond]

If one believes in something they will remember it longer. Pure memorizing to know something is easiler, becase it allows one not go through the trouble of thinking, reasoning or soul searching needed to believe something. I know that some eastern religions have hundreds of gods but I do not necearrily believe that it is true.

[CraigD]

Clearly, one doesn't have to believe something to know it. Example in point: I "know" a good bit of the history of various fantasy milieus (eg: J.R.R.Tolkien’s Middle Earth), but don’t believe in their objective reality, or even that they could be or have been true.

 

Conversely, one must know something in order to believe it. Example in point: I may claim to believe in “transcriptase polymorphism”, but since I don’t actually know the idea referred to by that phrase, my claim would be false.

 

In English, especially, the question is complicated by the multiple meanings of the words to “believe” and “know”. “Believe” can mean “assume, based on empirical evidence, to be objectively real” (eg: “I believe the Theory of Special Relativity”), “assume to be objectively real that for which there is not objective evidence”, assume to be objectively real that for which there can not be objective evidence”, (eg: “I believe in the immortality of the human soul”) or even “assume to be real what one knows with certainty is not objectively real” (eg: “I believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus”). “Know” can mean “understand” (eg: “I know Differential Calculus”), or “have affection for” (eg: “I know Takoma Park, Maryland”)

 

The question brings to mind the Ontological Argument, which posits that there is a class of entities that cannot be known without also being believed in.

[Turtle]

___Very good points & post Craig. Descarte wrote at least 3 ontological proofs & in my opinion failed. Descarte's value lies in his analytic geometry & not his philosophy; the Cogito is verbose & does not start with the first principle, I. That is to say he did not base his construction on I, rather the larger construct I think therefore I am. The thinking, & thereforing must derive from I by the very method he describes; since they do not, his apllication of method failed. His ontological god proofs suffer the same fate. :doh:

[Dark Mind]

Someone found a new favorite smiley :doh:.

 

:eek:

[Turtle]

___Semi on topic question/example. I do not currently believe I know the answer to the following question: Why is it when I click more in the smilies box to look for coffee or Waldo, I never find them in the same order? Is it because Waldo always moves & so forces the rearrangement of order? I do not know if I know, but I may, but I don't believe it is the case. :doh:

[Fishteacher73]

An new game of "Where's Waldo" every time you use it???

 

To know is simply to have knowledge about. It has nothing to do with belief. Yet to know that something is true, implies that you must also believe it to be true as well.

[ughaibu]

Fishteacher73: Would you divide knowledge to give direct and indirect knowledges? This would help to remove confusion between learning and knowing. With such a division direct knowledge might be a subset of belief, while indirect knowledge could exist independent of belief.

[C1ay]

gravity

[Pyrotex]

...To know is simply to have knowledge about. It has nothing to do with belief. Yet to know that something is true, implies that you must also believe it to be true as well.

I don't think it is all that simple. We use both words, believe and know, in so many ways.

 

For example "I believe" and "I believe in" are often used in entirely distinct ways. Believing "IN" something usually implies a surrender of one's will or intellect to that something, as "I believe in Allah". It implies a willingness to forego all doubt. I "believe" that Napolean Bonaparte was a real historical person, but I do not "believe in" Napolean.

 

Belief is often equated with a decision in the presence of inadequate facts (knowledge). How do you get to Albuquerque? I believe you go north from here.

 

In General Semantics, "knowing" and "believing" are considered two regions of a single spectrum of thought. Knowing generally, but not always, involves fewer assumptions, fewer leaps of faith, fewer honest doubts than does believing.

 

At least, I believe that is so.

[ughaibu]

What happens with the knowledge of individuals who have shared an experience some time earlier? With distortions of memory both will have knowledge of a differing experience.

[TheBigDog]

Do you have to beleive something to know it? Absolutly not. Lots of people believe things that they know nothing about. Other people know lots of things but don't believe any of it. Take consiracy theories. Some believe, based upon not believing the facts, others disbelieve based upon belief in the facts. Others refuse to decide based upon any facts. Those three sentences went noplace. But this thread reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.

 

I was working on a project where we had installed new computer systems into a manufacturing plant. A group of us were babysitting the operations around the clock for the first two weeks to get past the growing pains. The programmer working nights with me had no experience working night shift, he had not gotten any sleep in about 3 days and was a complete wreck. After a system glitch that he fixed I asked him to tell me what the problem had been so I could log it for the next shift. His glassy-eyed and well thought our response was "Bill, I would explain it to you, but then we both would not understand."

 

Bill

[dad2bkmj]

believing is an idea, knowing is a fact, faith is belief in the absence of proof.

[Pyrotex]

believing is an idea, knowing is a fact, faith is belief in the absence of proof.

Belief and knowing are both "experiences" of the human mind. These words attempt to describe our experience or reaction in the face of some external information.

 

I can believe, believe in, or know the external information.

 

The external information can be a fact, an illusion, a rumor, a tradition, an observation or a conclusion.

 

In my fundementalist family, I often see the following kind of conversation. A cousin will say "I believe in" some article of faith. But if anyone questions this belief, even an honest questioning just to understand it, the cousin will shift to "I know!" And then to "I damned well know!"

 

We can believe in illusions and we can doubt facts. Knowing doesn't prove that the object of knowing is a fact. But we would like to BELIEVE that it DOES!

[TIDUSGIYA]

Just as the topic asks, do you have to believe in something to know it?

I say no, but my friend says yes.

Any input, advice or links would be helpful.

Thanks

 

All caps post deleted by Tormod.