I Know I Believe I Think?

Going back to a topic we have touched upon in some of our previous classes, I believe that "I believe that..." (irony besides) is a strong statement in that it is simply difficult to refute. When someone prefaces a statement of knowledge with "I know...", it is often subject to immediate criticism and debate. For instance, the statement "I know abortion is wrong" would most probably generate more controversy than the statement "I believe that abortion is wrong." The first generates controversy because it seems to impose upon other people's personal beliefs. For instance if a pro-life advocate and a pro-choice advocate are having a conversation, the statement "I know abortion is wrong" implies, "I know that your belief is wrong." Whereas "I know" is an aggressive proclamation of knowledge, "I believe" is more emotionally based. Think about the things that we typically preface with "I believe": religion, abortion, politics, emotions, and cultural and ethical issues. Most would agree that there is no universal "truth" on many of these issues. Instead, truth and knowledge is based on an internal evaluation of the issue (similar to the article on introspection that we read a few days ago). Using "I believe" in conjunction with these issues indicates that the speaker has introspectively found personal knowledge -- however, "I believe" also implies that this knowledge is indeed personal and is not universal. When one says, "I believe in God", it does not imply that this is the only truth. While it may be the "truth" to that person, that statement also seems to acknowledge other beliefs at the same time. You can say that you "believe" something and also acknowledge other people's beliefs. Therefore, it seems as if "belief" is often used to describe issues that rely on emotion and faith as ways of knowing. Emotion and faith are difficult to refute because they are unique to the individual, and it is difficult to say that a particular emotion or faith is "wrong." When one claims to "know" something, it also implies that this knowledge is universal and supported by irrefutable reasoning.

Thus, "I Believe" derives it's strength because it is difficult to challenge a personal belief. On the other hand, "I know" derives it's strength because it seems to indicate the "knowledge" of a universal truth that can be explained through irrefutable evidence and reasoning. "I Belief" has the power of pathos while "I know" is an appeal of logos.

Belief mistaken for Knowledge

I think it's worth mentioning just how easily a fervent belief can be mistaken for knowledge.

For me at least, when I hear "I believe that..." (as opposed to "I know that..."), it suggests a degree of uncertainty. Although it may be believed just as vividly as any statement of absolute truth, a claim prefaced with "I believe that..." seems to me to be one that lacks sufficient proof or empirical evidence. Statements of knowledge, on the other hand, should obviously be more grounded in fact.

So here's where I see a little bit of a conflict: When someone holds a belief strongly enough, he/she often claims it to be knowledge when it actually is not. If you believe something firmly, it can actually be pretty hard not to do. For instance, I'm sure you could find two kids at our school at any moment with religious beliefs that directly oppose each other's (i.e. they are incompatible and cannot be simultaneously correct) who would each claim to know his/her belief to be true. But if knowledge can only be applied to true belief, then at least one of them should not be saying "I know..." I guess my point is that it's very difficult for the believer to distinguish between knowledge and firm belief.

Belief, Thought, and ANSWER CHUNG!

First of all, Chung raises a great question in the previous post. Get in their and discuss it!

The previous post brought up a discussion from last week regarding the statements, "I think that...," "I believe that...," and "I know that...." One notion I would like to throw out there is that believing, rather than knowing or thinking, seems most tied to action. Knowing that there is poverty, for example, affects many people does not, in and of itself, move most people to action. Thinking that it is important may move some. Believing that it is important seems to move the most to do something about it. Let us assume for a moment that this is the case, that belief is what is most closely tied with action. If so, then is a belief statement stronger than a knowledge statement?

Should the Omission of Ethics be necessary or even right for attaining a position of authority?

i was watching over some of McCain and Obama commercials and speeches and found that some of them are really rude and dismissive of ethical concepts, instead of talking primarily about their goals and purpose they bash the other person with argumentative diction, I was just wondering whether a person attempting to reach a position of authority over a large or even selective group of people should employ non-ethical methods in attaining that position?

Truth and Knowledge

I was thinking about what we talked about last on Tuesday about the difference between the statements "I think that," "I believe that," and "I know that." We stated that "I know that" was a stronger statement than "I think that" and "I believe that." It was also mentioned that perhaps "I think that" and " I believe that" were synonymous. Although I think that we often use those two phrases synonymously, there is a difference or else there would be no reason to put both of those up. 

When somebody states that they "know" something, we assume that they have evidence and facts regarding the situation. 

...Tying into the example between "This is a book" and "Obama is having an affair." 

I think that it is not so much about "Obama" having the affair as much as it is an accusation of someone having an affair. If "Wild Bill" was having an affair, wouldn't it require the same evidence as Obama to prove that it was true. "This is a book" is an assumed truth. We assume that since we've seen books before and the book in front of you matches the identifications that we have from past experience with books, it is a book. Even if someone is often caught having affairs, we still want SOME evidence for the accusation. 

The problem between truth and knowledge is that we often use truth to gain knowledge while we are also using knowledge to gain truth. 

I was studying for an AP psych test (btw, Mrs. Fritz is SO cool) when I came across the psychologist William James who devoted a great deal of his time researching and writing on the topics we have recently been discussing in TOK.....I did a little googling and found some key quotes from two of his most famous written works "Pragmatism" and "The Meaning of Truth". In "The Meaning of Truth", James emphasizes that for something to be true, it must not only be belived but also must "conform to reality". However, he draws a clear distinction between truth and fact in "Pragmatism": "Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth and so on indefinitely. The 'facts' themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are" (p. 108). I think this is an interesting point to make; I interpret his words as meaning that truth is subjective while facts are objective. And although truths are subjective, they often contribute to the objectivity by revealing more facts....which hurts my head a little bit to think about, but i think that makes sense. In "Pragmatism", James also deals with truth and it's applicability. Perhaps this quote best outlines the sentiments of some people in our TOK class: "Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms" (p. 97)? Although seeking truth and seeking to define truth is a task James sought to perform daily in one way or another, he too became frustrated and unable to provide a simple definition for truth and its pertinence to his life. Perhaps his pragmatic views contributed to his percieved cynicism about the topic, however, if finding truth is so unimportant, why would he have spent time writing a book proving its unimportance?

Glorification or Coincidence?

As you know the week of swimming has finished for the 2008 Olympics. After all the races a total of 23 new world records were broken at Beijing alone. There has been great speculation surrounding the cause of the fastest times including stronger athletes and better swim suits yet there is one more suspicion that hasn't been given a lot of attention. I know it may seem like I have no life but I went online and researched the new world records set by Beijing and the previous record before them. I wanted to investigate my dad's theory that the Chinese have shortened their pool to make their Olympics appear to be the best. I went back to my knowledge of Physics and calculated the time differences per lap between the two times and the old and new velocities of the swimmers to lead me to calculating the change in distance between the two pools (Beijing and where the previous record was set). I averaged these distances for both men and women and figured out what percentage that small distance is of the pool. I'm not saying that this is the sole proof that the Chinese are cheating. I realize the swimmers are probably stronger this year and maybe their swimsuits make them faster but this deserves some attention. It may not make sense at first as to why the Chinese would very slightly shorten their pool as it gives everyone the same advantage. Looking at the opening ceremony, China certainly wanted to make their Olympics one that was not meant to be forgotten. Is it possible that the Chinese shortened their pool to ensure more records were set to make this 2008 Olympics truly unforgettable? And another issue with the pool is how is it measured? The pool must be 50 meters long yet it will probably not measure exactly 50m everytime. In addition where do they measure the full 50m from? Do they measure at every point across the pool or simply one or two? If they only measured at certain points, the pool could be shaped so that some lanes are longer or shorter than others. There are so many questions to be raised over this one pool and the Chinese are constantly being doubted not only about this pool but also with the ages of their athletes. Despite all the controversy one cannot deny that these Olympics won't be forgotten.

from Magister P...Please check out the document that Alley put together on this topic.