I believe...

I think I'm sort of agreeing with Molly's post and disagreeing with it at the same time here. I'd like to make my own distinction between "I believe" and "I know." I agree that often times "I believe" is used in place of "I know" simply to avoid offense. But I don't think that is always true, and in fact I know ( ;) ) that "I believe" can be a very appropriate qualifier. For example, I believe that God exists. For me, this means that I in fact do think strongly that the existence of God is real, yet I acknowledge that others dispute the idea, there are plausible arguments against such belief. I qualify my belief as just that--a belief--because though I find it to be true, I recognize that it cannot be proven either way. Thus it is personal knowledge--a belief--rather than completely objective "I know" knowledge. On the other hand, I have no problem saying "I know" in cases where I feel I have arrived at objective knowledge even on a controversial issue. Let's take abortion, since it's already been mentioned. Allow the debates to start flowing, but I will say I know that abortion is wrong in some cases (to emphasize: in some cases). I base this upon what I believe to be objective ("I believe", since thoughts on objectivity cannot be proven truly objectively) , such as generally accepted moral code coupled with science, etc. (I can elaborate if it's really desired, but my point here isn't to argue my knowledge, it's only to make the point that I consider this an "I know" statement as opposed to an "I believe" statement.)
"I know" this post is starting to confuse me but "I believe" it makes a bit of sense.

Although the previous posts make some good points, I personally think that "I believe" is just a politically correct term intended to prevent "offending" others.  (Laurel started to say this in class.)  You either know something or you don't.  Belief should apply only to religion.  Religion is based on (for the most part) blind trust in a supernatural being. so despite arguments, no one will ever KNOW which religious follower is correct.  One religion is correct, though, whether it be the athiests, Catholics, Jews...etc.  Most people would say it should apply to ethics, since most people claim to be ethical relativists.  They say that what you "believe" is right is not necessarily right because other opinions exist.  Therefore, you do not "know" you're right--you "believe" you're right.  As an ethical objectivist, I KNOW that the highest obligation one has is to himself and his own happiness.  "Knowing" is often perceived as arrogance, so people use the word "believe" to appear more modest and "respectful" of others' beliefs.  Ironically, these people usually still think they are absolutely correct.  I don't love the words "I believe."  I hate the words "no offense."  You know what you know.  Admit it.

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.