ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Socrates
I often ask myself in this day and age of dis/misinformation about what I truly know and I feel that I can confidently say that if I myself have not experienced a phenomenon first-hand, either as an observer of or as a direct participant of, then I do not truly have knowledge of that phenomenon, rather only a belief of it. And what are beliefs if not a level of certainty in the validity or invalidity of some statement or assertion? The advantage of knowledge is that it allows belief/certainty to be transferred to others without the recipient’s necessity to experience it themselves first-hand, often at a lesser cost than what the propagators of that knowledge paid to gain that knowledge. There is an implicit level of trust involved in this relationship, in that, the knowledge is assumed to have been tested against a reasonable level of scrutiny and that there is no motive in its declaration other than to propagate truth. Even with this trust, we can and should always attempt to retrace the steps the originator traversed to assert the validity of what is stated so that the information the is not merely accepted at face-value. Only then should we accept something as being true or false. I think that we too often accept someone’s credentials as being sufficient to justify what they purport to be true and never go beyond that and it is corrupting all that we know or believe we know. These days, I do my best to state “I do not know” or “I believe that…” rather than state that something is because in the end, all I have are beliefs, some just stronger than others.