knowledge is truth, and belief is disagreement
Debate Rounds (3)
First, we ought to define the meaning of the debate's title. "Knowledge is truth, and belief is disagreement".
The statement "Knowledge is truth" is obviously constructed poorly. Truth is a philosophical concept, whereas knowledge is physical. Knowledge has an agreed-upon definition and can be measured accurately by science. On the other hand, truth is a matter of constant debate. Truth cannot be simply defined as "existence independent from the observer", because the content of a novel has an independent existence in spite of being a serie of mostly false narratives. A person can memorize the content of a novel and have full knowledge pertaining to it. Yet this knowledge relates to a thing that happens to be false. I know who Elminster is, and as a character his existence is independent from my own. And yet, Elminster is false.
The statement "belief is disagreement" is mumbo-jumbo. To disagree is to admit a difference of belief; disagreement cannot exist when a belief is not compared to a different one. A knowledge is a belief that is based on facts, but obviously knowledge cannot disagree with itself (because facts do not contradict each other). I know Elminster is a fictional wizard, and by telling it to you I'm expressing a belief that is grounded in facts. I have no disagreement over Elminster since you did not express any belief that contradicts my knowledge. I could hold a belief in something that isn't proven by facts, but until it is contradicted by someone or something it is not a point of disagreement.
The statement "therfore con is a lier", in addition to being bad grammar, is clearly mistaken. I did not lie by arguing that knowledge is not always true (knowledge can be true, but it doesn't have to be) and that you need at least two beliefs to have a disagreement over something. Actually, I spoke my own mind; a statement made by someone who believes what he/she said is never a lie, by definition. So you are wrong on about every statement you made in the debate, and I should win.
knowledge is measurements and observation, facts and math is knowledge.
well a novel is fiction.. its not experience based, what if you wrote a self biografy, would it all be false or fiction?
machines cant tell me what is real, only what to believe..
any belief is disagreement
knowledge is the opposite of belief
i just took a hard drug, i am just lying about taking a hard drug
you dont need beliefs to disagree, but some one else does in that case
"I could hold a belief in something that isn't proven by facts, but until it is contradicted by someone or something it is not a point of disagreement."
false, what something is that you could believe then? dragons live on the moon?
Network forfeited this round.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Belief cannot be the opposite of knowledge, because knowledge is a type of beliefs (more specifically, knowledge is a proven belief). Scientists believed that the Higgs boson existed, but that was not knowledge until they could actually prove whether it existed or not. They have knowledge now, because they have verified that the Higgs boson is indeed real and they know what it is. If instead they could prove that the Higgs boson didn't exist, their former belief would have been rendered invalid but they would still know that the Higgs boson didn't exist.
I know that 1 + 1 = 2. This is a proven fact, and a machine could tell me about it. You are contradicting yourself by saying that a machine can only tell beliefs, but that beliefs is somehow the opposite of knowledge. Obviously, if the machines are right some of the time, then there are times where machines do not contradict knowledge.
You can have knowledge about fiction. Even experiences do not have to be real. I could master a skill by practising it in a dream: dreams are not true or real in the conventional sense, but they can give me experiences. Therefore, knowledge does not have to be based on truth alone. A fact is not a personal memory, a fact is an evidence that something is true or not. 1 + 1 = 2 is not based on personal memory, it is based on evidences from nature. Evidences can be constructed by experiments, but not all experiments are sufficient to become personal memories.
Belief is not always a point of disagreement because when two people share exactly the same beliefs, they have nothing to disagree on. NOTHING. All disagreements are beget from a difference of beliefs. A belief can contradict knowledge; in this case, the belief is false. Other beliefs have yet to be verified by evidence. These beliefs include the Higgs boson until the time of its discovery. The third type of belief is belief in things that have been verified and validated by evidence. This type of belief is called knowledge.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ubermensch-Tsoa 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Knowledge is subjective is what I got.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.