If you cannot prove it, can it be considered "knowledge"?

Question

If cannot prove something to be true, is it merely "belief"?

how can you "know" something but cannot prove it? examples?

Paul

The question your answer begs is the very question you just "answered".

I cannot prove the sun will come up tomorrow THEREFOR I do NOT KNOW it will.

your totally wrong. It is NOT knowlege.

fourthline

dont get me wrong, being able to prove something to yourself counts as proof. i never said it didnt.

Answer 1

Again, all of our knowledge about the natural world is unproven. This is how all of science works. Science does not involve proof, yet it produces knowledge. It uses evidence.

If you think that only proof can produce knowledge, do you believe that evidence is meaningless?
=================
You're just going to close your eyes tightly and ignore the facts, huh? Sigh.

LOL @ your silly response to the "sun coming up tomorrow" example. See how ridiculously you have to act to stay consistent with your false claim? Doesn't that tell you something?

Answer 2

Apparently Bush knew that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. Does that
count?

To "know" something is true is simply
an application of to "Think" something is
true. That is, it is simply more emphatic.
To say otherwise would be to call our
President a liar ;)

There are very few things that can be
said with absolute certainty. Those things
all come in the form of logical statements
that are the foundation of all dialog.

For instance, if A is B, then B is A.
There are lots of logical proofs that
are based on similar statements - but
there is no direct connection to the
useful universe.

And of proof of that, consider that you
cannot prove that you (and the rest of
the Universe) are not a figment of my
(all-be-it odd) imagination.

Or worse - I cannot prove as I sit here
typing that I am not a figment of my own
(getting odder) imagination.

Answer 3

The same challenge can be given to modern "knowledge." Using the scientific standard, evolution and big bang theory not only haven't been proven, but can not be proven because you cannot recreate it. So, according to your definition, there is no knowledge of evolution or big bang theory, only belief. Of course, I DO agree with this statement, but I get the feeling you don't.

By the way, my cat disappeared for several days. When he showed up the other day, I picked him up the cuddle him. (aawww!) When I did, I looked at my wife and said, "He's going to die." How did I know? I really can't tell you. I felt it and I knew it. Of course, to your standard it would only have been a belief, not knowledge. But he died the next day.

I also know that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World. And there is more evidence in historical accuracy of the constantly challenged scriptures, prophecy that has been fulfilled, and transformed lives of people then you can find for most things.

Answer 4

The question is how do you define "proof"? (Remarkably similar to Clinton I know.) But truly that is the case. Criminals have been convicted on circumstantial evidence while others have slided past the system when the prosecution has a concrete case. The same holds true for G-d. Science may have a large amount of evidence suggesting there is no need for a higher being to create all of the other processes that we see going on around us. Science still has no solid proof that G-d doesn't exist, (aside from the simple case of Occam's Razor which only is a theory and not a law.) There however is no evidence that G-d does exist, (aside from the belief of others.) Perhaps a strong belief in something is all one person needs for a case to be considered knowledge, (other wise we wouldn't have religious extremists.) In a personal case I don't "know" for a fact my family loves me, I cannot prove it just by talking to them (although I highly doubt they would lie about it). All I have is a strong belief in their love. For me belief is enough, in certain cases, to define proof and therefore knowledge. Remember Descartes's thinking experiment "I think, therefore, I am." In it he imagines a demon has taken control of his body. All he can control is his own state of thinking. His objective in the experiment is to retake control of his body. He uses the quote above to validate his existence, and therefore use it as a stepping stone to re-control his body. For Descartes proof is his ability to think. For me it is my ability to believe.

Answer 5

Yes, there is inherent and empirical knowledge. Both are knowledge. Belief is also knowledge individually. Empirical knowledge is based on physical experimentation, proof I suppose what you mean. But there are thousands of things that we refer to as knowing but could never prove.
Descartes said, I think, therefore, I am. That's exactly what it is, can you prove you exist? No, only from a subjective point of view of your own organism and being, but really we could be merely a thought of some greater entity.

Answer 6

You seem to base knowledge on what can be conveyed to other people.

Can a woman prove knowledge of menstrual cramps to a man? No.

Does that mean she HAS no knowledge of what these cramps feel like?

I know what you're saying, but my point is that certain things are unique personal experiences which cannot be written or spoken of, proved or disproved. . .they can only be experienced.

When a buddhist monk-in-training would ask a question like that, the master would tell the student to close his eyes, and then hit him over the head with a stick. Then the master would tell the student to share that experience with his fellow students in words. . .it cannot be done.

Cool Question!

Answer 7

If you can't prove it, then it can't be "true." But it can be true for you. So if you say, "for me, this is true," or "I believe this to be true" you are not shutting out the other person. Everybody sees things differently, and yes, all of it is belief if it can't be proven, and even then, we don't know a lot about the mind. We are learning a lot about the brain, but the mind will take eternities to figure out. Your truth is only true for you.

Answer 8

I will answer from a "faithful" point of view.

Though faith is above reason, there is no discrepancy between faith and reason. since I believe that the same God that reveals mysteries through faith also gives us reason.

So any methodical research carried out in a truly scientifc manner cannot conflict with faith, since (I Believe) the things of the world and the things of faith come from the same God.

"Belief" is necessary to have faith.

Answer 9

You can't prove the Sun is going to come up in the morning. But you have knowledge that it will.

Answer 10

Let's see...

How about this for an example:

E=mc^2

---"next"...:-))

"LIFE NO ARGUMENT. -
We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live - with the postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content:
without these articles of faith nobody could now endure to live!
But that does not yet mean that they are something proved and demonstrated.
Life is no argument; among the conditions of life could be error."
- F. W. Nietzsche