What criteria can we use to distinguish between knowledge, belief, and opinion? (CCH2A)

Questions that arose during the "wonder" phase of See-Think-Wonder

Knowledge

Belief

Opinion

What do you notice about this question? What is it really asking us?

We're going to need to establish definitions for these terms, and they are going to coming from our perspective (our own definitions)

It makes us wonder if these three concepts are totally separate, or if they go together or are linked in some deep way

It made me wonder why it was so hard to see what the differences between the concepts! Why is it so hard to say what each of the concepts means, or how they are different?

It might be asking us which criteria we find acceptable and which ones we want to reject, and by testing different criteria we can eliminate some and make progress on the question

Do they all depend on each other to exist?

If we can't know something for sure, does that mean that we can't have knowledge? (i.e., certainty)

Is any of these concepts any more valuable than the others?

Is interpretation important? Is it possible for one single statement to be interpreted as all three of these things?

Do beliefs give us a certain comfort that knowledge cannot? Does that give us an incentive to keep claims at the level of belief?

The status of something as "knowledge" can change (for example, something we "know" might turn out to be a "false belief"). Does that mean that knowledge can be incorrect? Or were we mistaken that we had knowledge?

Collective belief might be considered as knowledge, even if it lacks some other quality we usually associate with knowledge

Is objectivity or subjectivity important to consider?

Knowledge is arguably objective

Belief is arguably subjective

Is knowledge contestable, or does it need to be agreed upon?

Is knowledge always in the form of a claim?

Knowledge is similar to a map (this might help us with the problem of certainty -- as long as it "works")

Does knowledge need to be true, and if so, what definition of truth?

Can we rely solely on belief and opinion to create knowledge?

Belief is often associated with claims for which we have no or little empirical evidence

Belief involves confidence on the part of the believer

Belief is also often contained within communities of believers (in the case of religion, for example)

How is knowledge affected by the context of knower (the historical context, the perspective, etc.)?

Is it right or wrong?

Is it real or fake?

Do I agree or not?

Is it possible for us to make our own opinions, or do they come to us already formed by others? What is our "own" opinion?

To what extent do these categories overlap? Can we answer a question about knowledge with a belief?

Are opinions less valuable than knowledge?

Is an opinion a belief that we aren't sure if we believe?

There seems to be a lot of overlap between opinion and belief: our opinions might come from our beliefs, for example

Do you need an opinion to form a belief? Do you need belief to form an opinion?

An opinion is like a belief that you are expected to defend, whereas everyone is entitled to their own beliefs

To what extent do our opinions overlap? Are we able to measure the extent to which they agree?

Supported by facts, and backed up by an investigation (or some other process, depending on the area)

We could say that knowledge HAS TO BE coherent with other knowledge claims, and that when it fails to be, it becomes a belief)

Belief: personally generated views, which don't need to fit into a broader system of claims

We could claim that opinions are the most personal of the three, that beliefs are more shareable and more broadly shared, and that knowledge is most broadly shared

Maybe truth has something to do with this: knowledge is more broadly shareable because it is the most likely of these categories to be true

If we think that knowledge has to be objectively true (or maybe just true), then doesn't that threaten historical knowledge? Or knowledge from the arts?