Ok, let's say knowledge was preferable *to *belief. 1) In order to find, you need to search. What is it you are searching for? 2) The package comes in a *Gestalt* which is the basis of your comparative analysis. A ghost story for the mind so to speak. :) 3) *Under standing* was mentioned as a key concept in the linked article, which opens up to a broader perspective. Compare.
Have a wonderful day! :) On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually I think knowledge starts off as belief.. it seems to me that > some belief can be equal that becomes a problem as to which types of > belief can be equal. > Allan > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I do see why "you" should considering the Knowledge vs Belief as a >> teaser. It is valid question and has a defined answer. >> >> Knowledge is preferable than Belief... because - >> >> 1) It is found on known FACTS, usually many more than those specific >> to a central matter < way to Larissa >, triggering familiarity with >> surrounding terrain too ! So, if there was a cloudburst or a landslide >> on the way of belief, knowledge will perhaps offer an alternate way or >> the nearest shelter. >> >> 2) It comes in a package including the knowledge of secondary or >> adjunct facts, paths and PROCESSES, tertiary and sub - processes... >> which makes our awareness of any matter, thing, being, person, event >> or phenomena more complete, detailed and certain. >> >> 3) It always leads to MORE KNOWLEDGE... more accurate, more extensive, >> things new, more deep... >> >> So, why is it considered a teaser... to those of us ? >> >> On Nov 3, 1:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The question why knowledge is distinctively valuable has an important >> > historical precedent in Plato's Meno in which Socrates raises the >> > question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief. >> > Initially, we might appeal to the fact that knowledge appears to be of >> > more practical use than true belief in order to mark this difference >> > in value, but, as Socrates notes, this claim is far from obvious on >> > closer inspection. After all, a true belief about the correct way to >> > Larissa is surely of just as much practical use as knowledge of the >> > way to Larissa—both will get us to our destination. Given that we >> > clearly do value knowledge more than mere true belief, the fact that >> > there is no obvious explanation of why this should be so creates a >> > problem. We will call the issue of why knowledge is more valuable than >> > mere true belief, the Meno problem. >> > >> > You can get the rest here - >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/ >> > >> > I somehow doubt I will be causing much mouse clicking in posting the >> > link! I did some work on knowledge justification and value whilst >> > bored out of my tree, recovering from a serious injury. I was >> > discovering most of academic study is 'witterpiss for wuckfits' at the >> > time. There's a big snag in the Meno problem in that it restricts us >> > to argument not much informed by science. We could sit down all day >> > trying to define knowledge, which might be nice under the Greek sun >> > with some Rakis, local beer and imported coffee. No one has defined >> > knowledge - rather as we don't have a precise decimal for pi. There >> > are, of course, many definitions. >> > >> > There are lots of teasers like this in philosophy. My take on this >> > is : >> > 1.there are some things I believe true and have tested scientifically >> > or in mathematical proof - these I trust as knowledge >> > 2. there are some things I think true and can't do the above with. >> > 3. etc. etc. on what I consider reliable or barking. >> > >> > we worry too much about this kind of stuff and not enough about the >> > issues of the condition of ignorance. >> > > > > -- > ( > ) > |_D Allan > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > >
