Truth vs. Knowledge

During a discussion in my class today, our teacher challenged us with a bunch of questions: What is the difference between truth and knowledge? Are they based off of one another? Is knowledge closer to opinion or truth? What differentiates knowledge, opinion, and truth?

-Emery =*w*=

Truth is more specific (facts agreed as true). Knowledge is more comprehensive (applying truths in relations to other truths).

Truth is in perspective & the more perspectives, the more truthful. I personally believe that nobody knows all perspectives or knowledge of anything, since we have limited experiences & understanding compared to what there is to experience & understand through various methods.

[Scott]

Knowledge is a form of belief which is something a person or conscious being does. Truth isn't a belief but rather a quality of a proposition.The classic, common way of describing truth in terms of truth is to say that knowledge is to define knowledge as a justified, true belief.

An opinion is like a belief but where a belief would refer to one's views towards an objective proposition an opinion is subjective and thus has no objective truth value. For instance, the opinion or subjective statement, 'Ice cream tastes good,' is not an objective proposition and is neither true nor false. Ice cream might taste good to one person while not to another, which does not make a contradiction or say that one of those people is holding a false belief. Rather, a subjective statement or opinion is incomplete and relative, thus it can be elaborated into many different objective propositions each with its own truth value depending mostly on context and namely who is the speaker.

Theoratically, two people cannot both know two opposing views. For instance, I cannot know X while you know -X because one of those has to false, assuming X is a proposition not an opinion or equivocal statement. In contrast, you can have the opinion that ice cream tastes great while I have the opinion ice cream tastes bad, and more than that neither of us is wrong because the taste of ice cream is subjective or in other words a matter of opinion.

Rather, a subjective statement or opinion is incomplete and relative, thus it can be elaborated into many different objective propositions each with its own truth value depending mostly on context and namely who is the speaker.

I like how you put that, Scott.
In a way, all known truth is incomplete & partially subjective, it seems.

Aristotle taught that knowledge equals necessary truths we affirm with certitude because they are beyond all reasonable doubt... & that there are 5 different kinds of knowledge (only #1 is knowledge in the strictest sense)...
1. Understanding truths that are self-evident
2. Mathematical conclusions
3. Well-established scientific generalizations
4. Philosophical opinions based on common experience and refined philosophical reflection
5. Historical facts based on research

This is an interesting question, one that I confront on a daily basis. All truths in present time have been subject to rigours testing and an evolution of sorts, but how can a solidified truth originate out of questionable or even falsified knowledge? Truth vs. Knowledge would be putting the cart before the horse, if truth is the destination then knowledge would be the path taken to reach the target, Knowledge vs. Truth would serve as a better assertion of the question. Take geometry for instance it was once believed that the quickest way between two points was a straight line, upon further investigation we have found that due to the curvature of the earth there is no such thing as straight line. I believe there are no true or false conclusions, just an constant progression of knowledge, personally my perspective has granted me the ability laugh at areas of academic study, for instance E=MC2 which ironically has made its way to the top of the scientific communities attention due to the presumption that it may not be totally accurate. For decades I sat in classrooms assuming that my answers marked with an X were wrong, but upon completion of my academic career I continued my education from a personal stand point only to find that my wrong answers held just as much truth as my professors so called right answers. Discussions of truth should be left to men who follow a strict moral code, without it they wouldn’t be able to articulate themselves in the midst of this chaos that surrounds us. A brief view into our history allows us the perspective to say that there was something still very primal about our actions back then, thirty years from now they will find that there are still areas of infancy in us. I do agree with Newme in that number one on the list is the only truth that we can interpret successfully without bending or breaking some other truth. “I perceive it therefore it is true”

Low111, I think you have misinterpreted #1 from above. A self evident truth is what Kant would have called analytic a priori, which is to say true in virtue of itself, or true by definition, like 'bachelors are unmarried men'. Also, although your faith in perception is laudable, I think it is misplaced. Take for example, the Mueller-Lyer illusion: if you perceive one line to be longer than the other and then form a belief to that effect, you have formed a false belief.

As for truth, I would hold that truth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowlege, though I don't claim to know what a sufficient set of conditions would look like, especially as Gettier showed us that justification is probably not enough.

As for truth, I would hold that truth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowlege, though I don't claim to know what a sufficient set of conditions would look like, especially as Gettier showed us that justification is probably not enough.

Perhaps it is required that the content of the belief must be true. For example, one can know that one exists because one cannot believe that one exists if one does not exist. And the same is true for thought and, perhaps, perception (can one believe that one feels pain without actually feeling pain?).

So the conditions for (certain) knowledge (to compare with uncertain or "common" knowledge):

1. One must believe the condition to be true, and 2. One's belief that the condition be true must be dependent on the condition being true.

Or in logical notation:

K(p) ↔ B(p) ∧ ¬◇(B(p) ∧ ¬p)

Personally, I'd argue that with this in mind all that one can (certainly) know is that one exists, that one thinks, and that one perceives.

I believe that truth is knowledge! They are one in the same.

[Scott]

I believe that truth is knowledge! They are one in the same.

Isn't knowledge a subcategory of belief and truth not a subcategory of belief but rather a possible quality/value of a proposition?

For instance, you wouldn't say, I true my wife is a work, and the statement, 'the sky is blue,' has a positive knowledge value. Rather you would say I know my wife is at work, and the statement, 'the sky is blue,' has a positive truth value.

Moreover, don't you think a proposition can be true even if nobody actually knows it is true? If at some point in time every human on Earth did in fact believe that the Earth was flat, does that mean it wasn't true at the time that the Earth was not flat but of course a more spherical shape?

Perhaps it is required that the content of the belief must be true.

If by 'must' you mean necessarily, then I disagee, knowledge could easily be of contingent truths. If, on the other hand, you meant something weaker, I don't see how this is different from truth being a necessary caondition for knowledge.

Personally, I'd argue that with this in mind all that one can (certainly) know is that one exists, that one thinks, and that one perceives.

I'm not sure about perception - consider the 'brain in a vat' situation, or Descarte's evil daemon.

If by 'must' you mean necessarily, then I disagee, knowledge could easily be of contingent truths. If, on the other hand, you meant something weaker, I don't see how this is different from truth being a necessary caondition for knowledge.

Not necessarily but necessarily because. For example, it is not necessary that one exists, but it is necessary that if one believes then one exists. One cannot believe if one does not exist. One believes. Therefore, one exists.

I'm not sure about perception - consider the 'brain in a vat' situation, or Descarte's evil daemon.

I didn't say that one can know that one's perceptions are accurate representations of an external world. I only said that one can know that one perceives; one can know that one has qualitative experiences.

-- Updated May 8th, 2012, 5:49 am to add the following --

As I seem unable to edit my reply I'm going to have to post a new one to add an addition.

My point about the content of the belief being necessarily true is to avoid Gettier problems. No matter how strong the justification is, there is always the possibility that the belief is false, or that the belief is true but that the "knowledge" is merely coincidental (Case I of Gettier's counterexamples to the JTB). However, if it is the case that the belief necessarily entails the truth of its content then it makes sense to say that one has (certain) knowledge. The belief that one exists necessarily entails that one exists -- one cannot believe that one exists if one does not exist -- and the truth of the belief is obviously not merely coincidental.

Any case where the belief does not necessarily entail its truth is open to the logical possibility of being false, and if there is a possibility of falsehood then would it really make sense to say that what (certainly) knows it?

-- Updated May 8th, 2012, 5:50 am to add the following --

Heh. Clever.

Since we are on the subject of truth, I was wondering if I could bring up a personal dilemma. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

After I graduated I was given a gift which was designed to help me realize the inevitable challenges of the "real world". This gift was a book called "On ********" by Harry Frankfurt. Needless to say, I read the book--it was more like a short essay, but I am not complaining.

Essentially, Harry Frankfurt asserted himself as a compatibalist; arguing that the definitive difference between a "bulls****er" and a person who lies is that a "bull****er" ignores the truth while the person lying consciously manipulates an acknowledge truth. The dilemma came about when he concluded this argument by stating that skeptics of knowledge and truth are "bulls****ers", which, in his book, is the worst possible thing to be.

This bothered me. I operate as a skeptical person. I question most truths because I find them to be incomplete. I know I am staring at a TV, but I feel more comfortable with the relative understanding that I am staring at a TV. In an effort to question self-evident truths, which so often change in our society, I do not feel like I am recklessly neglecting truth, but demanding more out of the truths which we naively accept.

I guess I am looking for some confirmation here beyond anything else, so I lay before you the golden question. Are skeptics "bulls****ers" who aim at chaotically disturbing the equilibrium of innovation, or can they be the real unappreciated miners of truth?

I'll be the first to say that I love the idea of truth. That is why I question it.

Knowledge:
We should trace 'knowledge' to its root, i.e. 'know' and the various processes of knowing especially, the mental aspects.

From the above we have the following;
Knowledge:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
-the sum of what is known: the transmission of knowledge
-information held on a computer system.
-Philosophy: true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge

Re Philosophy, [however no single agreed upon definition of knowledge exists, and there are numerous theories to explain it. The following quote from Bertrand Russell's "Theory of Knowledge" illustrates the difficulty in defining knowledge.]

"The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult of the three with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true. Let us begin with belief."

Since there is no single agree definition of 'knowledge' in philosophy, we do not have accept 'justified true belief' as THE definition of what is knowledge. As such, in a philosophical discussion of knowledge, one will have to put forward one's definition of 'what is knowledge' and argue for it.

In the above case, knowledge is a very loose term.

Truth:
Truth is generally defined as knowledge in conformance to reality. Reality is something we do not fully know, so what are we conforming with. Since we do not fully know reality, the only truths we can process are those that are derived from the various frameworks of the 'game of truth' that humans play. For example, if we input certain knowledge and data into the scientific game of truth, we obtain scientific truths. The other types of framework are political, legal, philosophical, logic, mathematics, the conventionals, common senses, etc.

Thus,
knowledge, imo, is as what is defined conventionationally in dictionary, those agreed by various philosophical schools and from other sources.
Truth is a resultant of processed knowledge via the various games of truth.

-- Updated Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:49 pm to add the following --

Are skeptics "bulls****ers" who aim at chaotically disturbing the equilibrium of innovation, or can they be the real unappreciated miners of truth? I'll be the first to say that I love the idea of truth. That is why I question it.

Non-skeptics who cling to 100% certainty of knowledge and truths are not bullsxxxters, but are led (by the evolutionary machinery) by the nose and fed with various shades of 'lies' disguised as truths (processed) to facilitate basic survival.
"There are no absolute truths, there are only perspectives" Nietzche.

Knowledge is what is gained through education and experience. Truth is what is found through education and experience. Wisdom is using what education and experience one has. And opinions are just that'; opinions.

Contextually speaking, wouldn't the truth we learn be false, or at least incomplete, in a lot of circumstances? You speak of education; take the ever changing facts of the sciences or the sociological developments of human rights. In each of these studies we accomplish the golden rule we almost always seem to forget: to know is that we know nothing. We may seem to get better at a certain truth, but that doesn't entail it is fully truth, or even truth at all.