When I challenge my established concepts with new ideas or angles, and realize my previously held truth doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, or is reinforced or expanded upon. For example, “is a hot dog a sandwich?” makes me reconsider how so much depends on context, and how we as humans crave labelling and categorizing to the point of it being detrimental (see biological sex vs gender, Star Trek edit wars, classical music and pornography cataloguing, etc)

Belief is either something I want to be true, or seems true although I don't have solid evidence. I believe that in the universe there will be many worlds with living beings that eventually evolve to be comparable to humans in mental capacity and the ability to create, but that due to how space time works we will never directly interact with them. They won't be close enough, or our time periods of existence won't match up if either of us attempt interstellar travel. Millions of years is a blink of an eye in the scope of the universe, but it is so vast that the odds are high that another planet will have similar conditions for carbon based life, not to mention other possible forms of life.

Knowledge is supported by evidence. It might not be a perfect explanation or understanding, but it is what is known based on the current information. We now know planets exist around other stars, but before we could observe them it would be a belief to say they existed. The difference is supporting evidence.

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.

I know I exist. Everything else is varying levels of belief.

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.

A belief is a headline that seems to be accurate. Knowledge is when I actually read the article and checked other sources.

I have knowledge. People who disagree with me have beliefs. /s

nah but for real its all the same, innit? it's just a matter of how well supported you think your thoughts/beliefs/knowledges are. if i was drawing that kind of a distinction in my head, wouldn't that mean that i'm thinking things are true that i simultaneously know are false? if i was gonna have 'knowledge' and 'beliefs' rattling in my head as separate things, that seems like me it'd smack of willful self-delusion.

Keeping a close eye and tight rain on bias and fallacy, observation beats word of mouth. A peer-reviewed scientific study is exactly equal to observation.

Mathematical proof is also observation.

Lack of observation does not in any way indicate lack of truth. Because you feel or don't feel some way and have or have not seen something happen to someone else in no way influences whether something actually happened to someone else. Our perception filters are incredibly bad.

Appeal to authority means very little as single people easily get biased. Discount anything said if the person telling you the truth stands to gain money power or time from it being believed.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

You can't know whether you have it or not.

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

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.

I don't. Everything I think is true, I have various evidence that it is. If the evidence is stronger, the surety is stronger. Think, believe, know... all the same thing, all dependent on evidence.