Yup.
Knowledge is the sort of thing that cannot be false. Claims of knowledge are not equal to knowledge. Sometimes what we thought was true turned out to be false, despite the fact that we had been calling it “knowledge”. At that point in time, we no longer call it knowledge, for it never was to begin with.
What if? At least one of us is wrong, depending upon what happened. Sometimes we can check for ourselves and settle whose belief is true or not.
My books have disproven your books. I’m sorry. It’s just the fact of things.
I am happy to help you learn. Just ask me a question. I’m pretty sure I can help, from what I’ve seen of your apparent confusions.
Usually when I think there’s nothing of interest, I walk away. That’s how I handle it.
I don’t think you’ve arrogantly denied intellectual discourse. I mean, you have been shy to engage, but maybe you’re just busy with something else.
Well, you probably shouldn’t deny truth then. I mean, if such denial might catch up with you.
Oh, goodness. Let us now analyze the speaker, rather than addressing the issues.
Words to consider, don’t you think?
I have made a judgment of you, but I will not share it in this thread. I’m here for the discussion.
Of course. Of course.
So have you decided if you will try my questions?
Right. According to you. I certainly understand that you believe so.
Sure. And you are the person to tell the other guy that you now own the T, it is contrary to his knowledge, and so he doesn’t really have the knowledge he claims to have.
I understand. You believe yourself capable of owning the T.
I’m just asking you how you do that, exactly?
Is that just something you do not want to share with me?
You’ve both checked, but you still disagree.
What now?
(It was the original question.)
This sounds right. Their position is easily clarified, though, when we point out that most of us have a vocabulary around 25,000 words, and there are maybe a million different words in English, counting all associated variants. If we don’t use our words to carry multiple meanings, then we can’t cover all the words in English (or American). We would all need to learn ALL the words, which would be impossible for most humans. 
If you read my words again, you will see, I hope, that I said that it is confusion to which philosophers are prone, not philosophy, and not belief. 
As above, my “hope” is directed at my thoughts being “true”, not at the subject of those thoughts.
I tend toward agreement with this, but I think a little qualification would help. It isn’t enough that you have entertained thoughts, or plans. That, alone, does not make you a philosopher. If you indulge in serious and considered thought, then that is philosophy, and you are a philosopher when/if you do it. IMO.
So we agree, more or less. 
Ah. Got it. Ambiguity strikes yet again.
So often, over the years, we see such sentiments. We often see them from those who tend toward a view of certainty, logic and objectivity. Someone will state that “there is a truth”, not mentioning that the “truth” in question cannot be verified or justified. The mere fact that such a truth MUST EXIST, logically (etc), seems sufficient for them. And so they state and assert these truths, not realising that without justification or verification they are meaningless.
“There is either a lion or not.” is a good and typical example of this. It is surely true, I agree, but it is just as surely pointless and unhelpful to the discussion in hand.
Isn’t this down, again, to a semantic matter? To use “knowledge” to describe that of which we are as sure as we can be, and “belief” as something less sure, is nothing more than a convenience, yes?
But by having the two terms, we straight away have those who want to give their beliefs greater authority, by describing them as knowing or knowledge. I despise hyperbole, perhaps for this reason.
But I think it is handy to have the two terms, even if real and actual knowledge is about as common as rocking-horse 
. 
As always, I carry it several steps further into the weeds. I believe that even if we knew all one million words, it wouldn’t solve the cave-to-cave problem. I think the only thing that can approach a solution is listening carefully, thinking hard, and offering back our best paraphrase of what the other guy is trying to express.
Then do that again and again until the speaker leans back and says, “Yeah, I think you’re grokking me now.”
(Which is why sniping from the sidelines or insisting the other guy believes X since he believes Y and Z… is not an attempt at communication. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s not an attempt to figure out what’s in the other cave.)
But I have some sympathy for the analytical philosophers. As best I understand, they are trying to manipulate words mathematically, the better for a stranger to walk into the room and see the meaning, without even considering the speaker.
It’s a fine project. I just tend to prefer the company of poets, is all.
Also, there is so much communication which is bodily. An arched eyebrow, reciting a philosopher’s word-math string, can turn the meaning on its head… for that speaker and listener.
Yes. All of language seems like a convenience to me.
I think a problem arises when we stop seeing that and start seeing language as some kind of math—so we make propositions which always and evermore contains the same meaning.
I would not like to be a translator of ancient texts. Even if they immerse themselves in that ancient culture and language and know the specific person who wrote the words and his broad intent for his writing, I would be skeptical of their translation.
I would assume quite a bit of interference between the writer’s cave and mine.
Yes. The same people who would disdain the gypsy lady as not really owning the T in JTB might assert that their own naturalism-based T is the actual and real T.
It’s why they can inform a knower that he only thought he knew. “Since I own the T., I can tell you that you only thought you knew the thing.”
Which looks awfully like a prophet of God speaking, to me.
The more terms the merrier, I always say.
But they are only our lowly tools. That is sometimes hard to remember.
Not all truths can be verified or need justification. That is the core error in this thread. It is not the justification that makes the sentence true. It might be true whether it is justified or not.
Further, there are well-known problems with the very idea that every truth must be justified. It leads to circularity or regress.
Truth and belief differ in that truth belongs to a sentence, belief to an attitude towards that sentence. Separating the two is what permits that sometimes our beliefs are wrong.
“There is a lion, or there isn’t” sets up a grammar, one in which sentences are either true or they are false. It’s a useful grammar for working with lions and trees, but there are alternatives. Taking it as read that only one of these options pertains - that there are no semi-lions behind partial trees - is a useful, if obvious, piece of information; perhaps too obvious.
Yeah, I’ve seen enough of this thread. It’s far too sensitive for my tastes. The conflation, straw dogs, ad homs, inconsistent terminological use, performative contradictions, false dichotomies, poisoning the well, self-contradiction, etc. have made it not worth the while.
Best of luck to you BGY!
Gotta love the company of those poets… Wish I were one.
Yup.
This thread has lost my interest completely. Imma go write a poem!
Boy, it sounds like there are some really poor debaters around here.
Now that you mention it, I think I have noticed.
Come see me any time… especially if you feel ready to answer any of my direct questions.
Yeah, I was once in a bear fight, but I got bored with it there toward the end.
So I’m feeling you here.
Nonsense. I can verify and justify any belief I please.
What are you talking about? Bring me one.