Is belief a condition of knowledge?

Yeah, pretty much.

 

Isn't it really the other way around? Belief requires knowledge, in my mind, or it's little more than vague supposition. This is how I see it: information>knowledge>understanding> wisdom, and then belief. According to The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, the definition of epistemology is:
"Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry".
I would put epistemology into Google and about the 3rd or 4th entry you will find the article that outlines this and discusses the concepts.

 

How can you understand something before you have the data (knowledge) in front of you? This is what a priori means...it is logically impossible to draw legitimate conclusions about phenomena until you can obtain the knowledge and understanding of the data. Logical analysis of any concept requires you make obvservations first and then sort the logic out. The subjective is indeed discussable and pertinent., but that isn't the point quite yet.

 

Hey Wyote, I apologize for not PMing you and will probably do so this evening. It's finally cooled down here in Ft. Smith and I'm ready to watch the Hogs kick some major ass this season. I enjoy your points in discussions, and look forward to some interesting conversations with you! Rick (deadred)

 

Seeker, let's start with this: Say you have a giant pile of nuts, bolts, tires, a gas tank, wheels, etc, etc, that is like data. It's nothing but a pile of whatever until you put it together. The pile of parts is like information (data) in a sense because you have to analyze it and put it all together. As you go through this process, the information (data) becomes understanding as you learn how the parts fit together and how everything works. Put it together and you have a car. So data has evolved into knowledge and then into understanding. You can drive it, but you need to learn the laws and rules of the road to drive legally and safely. This is where understanding becomes wisdom over time.
Think of "a priori" as "without facts". It is really drawing conclusions without obtaining critical data and doing a logical analysis of that data (information).

 

without reading the rest of the thread, i'll say this

personally i don't see how i can claim something isn't true when i can see it with my own eyes, when it's been confirmed by evidence which has been proven reliable, etc. knowing something requires it to be consistent with the rest of what i know as objective reality. because perception is subjective i can not know for sure that what i know as "objective" is truly so, but i believe it's possible to know something within the confines of my subjective perception of "objective" reality, and that's far enough to say that i can know something while accepting that i can't be certain i know it objectively. basically, absolute knowledge isn't possible but uncertain knowledge is, and that's good enough for most of us as mere human beings. (geez, does this make any sense)

in order to know something, don't you have to believe it is true? not as a cause and effect thing. it's like more of an "if x and y are both true, then z is true." x is belief, y is evidence/proof, and z is "knowledge"-- not absolute, as it's impossible for it to be.

i don't know where the quote's from, but so far it makes some sense to me. /lolsemantics

 

Belief is a condition of knowledge in the sense that there must be belief in order to contrast with knowledge or else both words become meaningless. At least, that is the linguistic interpretation.

Beyond that, I have no clue.

 

Ah but the question isn't whether it exists, but whether you know it exists. So in order for you to know, you would have to acknowledge its existence, in other words, believe it exists.