I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so the dialectical theory of knowledge. What starts as ideas are tested and confirmed or denied in reality, which then sharpens ideas to be retested and confirmed or denied in reality again, in a spiral. Ideas come from real, material conditions, and it is through this cycle that theory meets practice, sharpening each more effectively.

I’m not interested in what the dictionary says or a textbook definition I’m interested in your personal distinction between the two ideas. How do you decide to put an idea in one category versus the other? I’m not interested in the abstract concepts like ‘objective truth’ I want to know how it works in real life for you.

Huh. I guess I don’t categorize concepts like that… is it normal to? I believe what I think is true. The certainty of that belief depends on either my own knowledge of supporting facts; or the credibility of someone else’s knowledge in a field I’m not familiar with. If new knowledge reveals a belief to be incorrect, I recognize that at some point I succumbed to bullshit, and need to adjust my belief accordingly.

For me, everything is a belief unless it satisfies the following criteria:

1. It is generally accepted as true among experts
2. There is ample evidence that is both personally convincing and leaves no room for alternate interpretations (not the same as #1, since many fields have “commonly accepted knowledge” that is generally acknowledged as most likely true but has no evidence to back it up)
3. It is specific enough that it cannot be interpreted in a way that is misleading

I find that the one that trips up most people is #3, since some people speak in technically true but overly broad statements and the listener ends up filling in the gaps with their own biases. The listener leaves feeling like their biases have been confirmed by data, not realizing that they have been misled.

In the end, according to my criteria, very little can be categorized as true knowledge. But that’s fine. You can still make judgements from partial or biased data or personal beliefs. You just can’t be resolute about it and say that it’s true.

Knowledge can be proven, like how a beautiful sunrise proves the existence of god. /s

There’s no god. As soon as we get that point across, we can start meaningfully improving things.

For knowledge, I first try to contextualize the piece of thinking into a human framework. Once I did this, I ask myself if the piece of thinking can be known by any system that can be replicated. If this is the case, then I look into it, to get a grasp of how the piece of thinking became a piece of information and the context in which it was tested. Then I adopt it, trying to remember that context.

A belief I just decide it is true. I have personal rules for it too. 1) Overall, I’d like it to be a part of my life because it makes me feel better than not having it, and 2) it doesn’t hurt anyone else, as far as I know.

Obviously, off the top of my head.

From many perspectives the two are the same and that ís a huge problem

I would say that beliefs are unprovable, and knowledge is provable. If I claim the sun will rise tomorrow, we can test that. If I claim god exists but is hiding, we cannot test that. The former is knowledge, the latter belief

knowledge is provable, repeatable, demonstratable. faith is by its very nature none of those.

I want to know how it works in real life for you.

What works for me in real life is know as little as possible, view all beliefs as clouds moving across the sky

Belief is overarching concepts, knowledge is specifics, many in this thread are conflating belief with faith

I believe in science because I have knowledge of the scientific method.

Knowledge can be externally verified by an independent party.

Belief can be corroborated but not verified.

Facts are made up by humans. If an opinion of mine regarding an empirical argument conforms with the general good of the public I prefer to spend time with, I accept it as a fact. When my opinions contradict with this, I accept that I believe it this way, considering neither options are testable or objectifiable.

Knowledge is what happens when you’ve evaluated enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that something is false. If you haven’t seen the evidence, but still think it’s true or false (you don’t lack belief), then you have a belief about it. As such, knowledge is a type of belief with extra justification.

If I’ve reviewed enough evidence I’m comfortable saying I can reject the null hypothesis, that is I have a belief that it’s knowledge, I’ll call it as such. If I haven’t, I’ll couch my confidence in my belief accordingly.

Probably doesn’t answer your question completely, but I’m a big fan of the phrase "my understanding is . . . " In other words, this is what I “know” as fact, but I’m aware that my knowledge could be wrong or insufficient and I’m willing to be corrected or updated. I use this phrase almost any time I’m asserting something as fact, as a kind of cya.

That’s a pretty simple distinction, but you’ve asked for us to define abstract concepts without using definitions or abstract concepts. So let’s just say, knowledge is what you know and beliefs are what you believe. A belief implies some level of doubt, while knowledge is just the information you have in your head. There is a lot of overlap. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, because I understand how the earth rotates and orbits the sun. I believe it will happen because I understand physics and observable phenomena. Put it another way, it is a high-confidence belief based on the knowledge obtained through observation and study. Some beliefs are based on nothing more than hope, and some knowledge is beyond any doubt. I believe the Phillies can win the World Series, but I know our bullpen pitches cantaloupes and our hitters are streaky as shit.