And not having CNS problems probably equates to being even less of an expert, don't you think? — Pattern-chaser

A person without MS can still be more of an expert, otherwise, you wouldn't have experts in the medical field researching it. In my case, however, I wouldn't dare to question your knowledge in MS since having it would equal you knowing more both through experience but also the knowledge gained around it. :up:

Having said that, I'm here to tell you that the effects of CNS problems are often difficult to describe, or even to imagine, if you don't have such problems. I experience sensations for which there are no words. I.e. no words have been coined to describe these things, partly because so few of us (sufferers) need them, and partly because the effect of a partly-functioning/partly-damaged nerve gives rise to feelings that are ... indescribable. The explanation is easy. Living with it is less so. And, for most CNS conditions, there is no cure, which is a little depressing. — Pattern-chaser

And I wouldn't try to explain or argue about such experiences. What I referred to here specifically was an observation by my own CNS reaction to THC. And after having read about the cannabis research on Parkinson patients, I tried to induce why such improvements occur based on the observation of "lag" in intention and movement that I experienced. As you mentioned, it's hard to put into words those experiences you have subjectively within a framework of a hypothesis. I can only say that the CNS reaction to THC was very interesting and worth taking notice of. As long as I don't present anything as a theory of any scientific truth-claim I think it's worth mentioning this experience as I think even without having any problems myself I am, as well as everyone, interested in reaching progress with finding cures and solutions to things like this.

Would it be better for democracy to evolve to be more long sighted? — frank

Yes, but impossible in the current form. This is the biggest critique against democracy, especially representative democracy, that it is a paradoxical system; Without expert knowledge and insight into everything you cannot vote for experts to rule everything. Current democracy tends to become demagogical in every case applied. Only after a disaster does the status quo change and always balance itself too far in one direction.

The longer the range of a plan, the more widespread and deep its consequences are likely to be. That means depending on the wisdom of today to try to protect the children of tomorrow. Maybe we aren't that wise and allowing things to evolve naturally without interference is the smarter plan. I'm prone to supporting that theory. — frank

If the consequences are widespread and deeper and made with the intentions of improving society, is always good and better than anything short-term.

How do you define "evolving naturally"? In what way does something "evolve" without interference? Evolution and progressive change only occur if there is interference towards what is static. And short term interference with the static always leads to a higher probability of disaster, by examples throughout history.

Today's anti-intellectual smack talk against intellectuals and experts is the result of the increasing individualistic society in which people claim themselves to be experts, but rarely see past their short-sightedness because of it. This leads to an increase in movements like anti-vaccers who are responsible for the return of diseases which were almost extinct.

The reason for this, I think, is that the internet brought forth a way to search for information by yourself, without any tools of how to find out if what you gather is true or not. Because of this, people have been living in a world where people start to question knowledge itself, all while clustering together in tribalistic groups online.

It's a soup of ultra-cognitive-bias. The marks of such groups are higher shortsightedness because they don't have the tools to question and research their own conclusions. All while others within the group validify their conclusions back and forth. That means they cannot see past the short-term. None of this is good for society. In order to evolve society naturally and improving on it, you need to progress with long term insight and methods, otherwise, you could just flip a coin and decide society based on it. There are far too many examples of suffering and disasters coming out of short-sighted decisions.

Essence is simply a way of thinking about things--it's what an individual considers necessary features to apply a concept term as they've formulated the concept. — Terrapin Station

Example:
An iron atom is not iron, but only a definition of the set of electrons, neutrons and protons together with their charge. So iron itself is a set of iron atoms, but the atoms aren't iron.

Please be careful about theorising what people with neurological conditions might experience - unless you have Parkinson's yourself? I have MS, and your 'explanation' seems garbled to me. How much do you know about the human CNS, and how it actually works? — Pattern-chaser

I'm not theorizing in any scientific matter, how can you make that interpretation? I was speculating based on what I've read about cannabis research for Parkinson's and the observations I've made both on others and myself. It's speculation, a hypothesis, not a theory. And having CNS problems does not equal being an expert or telling others that they cannot think or speculate about such things. It's like saying people can't talk about cancer if they don't have it themselves. I would much rather break down the hypothetical ideas I had, in order to find out if they aren't valid because of... if they are incomplete because of... or if they are valid because of... If you have knowledge on this subject that counter-argues or help expand the ideas presented that would be much more welcomed.

something accepted with no evidence or proof. — Pattern-chaser

But there's lots of evidence for causality in physics.

Physics adopts cause and effect as an axiom, an unjustified assumption, honestly declared as such, because no form of proof exists for it. — Pattern-chaser

Physics doesn't just accept an axiom and form theories from it, the concepts work as premises in an argument, they need to be true and are measured and calculated through math. It's a combination of real observations from large scale galaxy events, down to elemental particles found at CERN combined with theoretical physics which needs extreme scrutiny in order to be accepted at all. To dismiss this as something close to being a "belief" is seriously a naive perspective on physics.

no evidence to back your claim; no reason for it to be true. You see? — Pattern-chaser

How about most major publications in physics? Causality is a basic part of it, so what evidence do you mean doesn't exist?

Oh look! Another unjustified assertion! — Pattern-chaser

No, based on what we know in physics. Before Big Bang and within a black hole, we can only speculate since we don't have data and observations that can describe it. And even if there are possibilities outside the current understanding of physics, it is as close as we can get to the nature of causality within our laws of the universe. So how is that an unjust assertion?

But I believe we can conclude there was a start of time and a first cause. So lack of specific knowledge of the detailed processes involved does not prevent high level deductions being made. — Devans99

We cannot know, how can we? How can you make a certain deduction without the certainty of the properties of pre-BigBang? You make an assumption that fit the narrative of a first cause argument, but you simply cannot know. And as the math shows about things like black holes, it's not easy to simply slap a "first cause" to something that doesn't exist under our known laws of physics. Before we know the properties of pre-BigBang, we cannot assume anything. And doing so is only in support of an agenda, not deductive truth.

We could go into detail on causality in itself, but I think the key answer to the question of causeless effects is that in our universe, no, not possible. But we have areas, both before Big Bang and for example in black holes, that defy our laws of physics, which means we cannot know if it is possible without making a huge assumption on what was before and what is inside a black hole.

Did you read the entirety of what I wrote? Causality in our universe from Big Bang has mathematical precision, before it, we don't know. Therefore defining anything based on causality or any properties of our known universe to something outside of it is impossible with our current knowledge.

It's not the point. The point, the conclusion I made was that because we don't have enough data and understanding of pre-BigBang properties we cannot conclude anything. You cannot apply our universal laws to something that defies them or works in another way. Just as you cannot explain the properties of the center of a black hole.

As long as you can't solve what was before, you can't conclude anything. For example, why is there not equally an amount of anti-matter to matter? It all formed at Big Bang, so if you know the properties of pre-BigBang, you would have an answer to that question as well.

Assertions (without justification) are a problem here. We are wondering if effects can happen without causes, and you respond by saying they can't and don't, but you offer no justification. — Pattern-chaser

I'm referring to entropy, to causality for any large events (large being larger than quantum level, which means smaller than atoms, neutrons/protons and even quarks, is the quantum limit. If the probability of events not happening at random is at an infinite number as soon as their properties as matter and energy becomes defined by quantum events, then causality can't be broken, i.e causality for large scale events are determined. But at quantum levels, where matter and energy get properties by how the elemental particles behave, particles can form out of nothing. Meaning, there is no cause to a particle popping into existence and there's nothing after it disappears.

My conclusion isn't that this concludes in any answer, my conclusion is that because of this, we don't have an answer. Therefore to claim that something cannot come from nothing is lacking enough data to support such a conclusion, especially when little is known about the properties of the universe pre-BigBang.

The simple conclusion we can arrive at by just reasoning is that we simply don't know at this time and cannot conclude anything out of that uncertainty. Any attempt is to assume something we have no data in support of.

But the theist doesn't simply want you to regard his argument as reasonable enough to be taken into account, he wants to convert you completely. — Merkwurdichliebe

Which may be a key difference between a theist and an atheist. I can't speak for all atheists, there are undoubtedly those who have hate towards religion which drives them, but for most atheists, it's not about converting theists to become atheists, it's about questioning why to use that framework for the understanding of the world and universe. If the theist tries to convert me I would not really try to convert them back, I'm simply asking the "why" to everything. It's also the constant "why" that define atheists. It's never "why - because this" it's "why? - because this - why? - because this - why?" to infinity. There are no final answers, only questions and living with constant questions is daunting for many people. Which means it's daunting for theists that others ask them the "why" to their beliefs. I understand where belief is coming from, I could go through the psychological science of it and it wouldn't matter to a theist since accepting the questions is enough to shake the foundation of existence for them. This makes a fundamental difference; I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. A Theist, however, has a hard time accepting there even to be ideas that don't follow their personal belief, since that would be to accept questioning of their belief to be a valid perspective.

Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen? — Pattern-chaser

Every effect on large scales has a cause. In quantum physics, however, there are particles popping in and out of existence all the time. The famous outburst from Einstein about not playing dice with the universe is in relation to that. What causes these particles to pop in and out of existence? They seem to be exactly that, something out of nothing, then back to nothing.

The full understanding of this is unknown at the time and that's just the point. If we cannot know it, we cannot deduce that something cannot come from nothing. Claiming that requires knowing more than all of science can know at this time in history.

They will never succeed in convincing atheist. — Merkwurdichliebe

To argue for a conclusion that has been decided upon before the argument is a basic logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's about convincing an atheist. I would even argue that if your argument is solid, the atheist will definitely take that into account, not to become a believer, but to accept the conclusion since it cannot be countered easily. The point though, is that it doesn't matter if it's an atheist or a theist or whatever at the receiving end; philosophical arguments need to make sense and not be riddled with biases and fallacies. Convincing anyone needs hard work and making the conclusion before the argument will never work, ever.

The methodology that atheism relies on has proven itself, but it hasn't been proved. But it doesn't matter because as long as it works, it is working. This is where atheist belief lies. — Merkwurdichliebe

What hasn't been proved you mean? The method of gaining knowledge that is detached from human biases and fallacies is very well thought out. You can claim that because we cannot know anything for sure, even these methods are not certain to be the best. However, as we countless of times make predictions about the universe, predictions even outside of the current understanding of everything, like general relativity, for example, it means that the nature of logic exceeds human perception and is why we can understand and reason things far beyond human perception and also act upon them. This is not a belief, it's relying on a method that has proven itself to arrive at facts that are as close to the truth as we can get. And as I mentioned, if we want to gain knowledge about what is true; we need the methods that take us as close as humanly possible, not rely on fantasies because it's convenient. So there's no belief to be seen. If the methods change in favor of better tools to explain things, we change them, but there's no belief in the method, the method is just a method.

The necessity to attach belief to atheism only seems like a way to undermine what it's about through rhetoric. I would argue that if theists were even interested in understanding the atheistic perspective, belief should be left out of the terminology for defining it. Clear definitions are one key to better understanding, but people's agendas seem to favor using terms in certain ways to win arguments, not gain an understanding of something.

They certainly believe in their methodology. — Merkwurdichliebe

Because it demands more than accepting something that is convenient or comforting. The methodology favors gaining more and more understanding and knowledge about something and never settling on something being "truth". Theists settle with a conclusion and then tries to argue for it. The logic of just viewing these two perspectives against each other makes it clear which perspective has the least viability for actually gaining knowledge and which does not. Claiming that we can't know anything for sure does not render the two equal, one is clearly more fit to scrutinize knowledge over the other. That's just logic.

We sometimes find the truth difficult - maybe even impossible? - to determine, and your response to this is to say that sometimes people reason improperly? Well so they may, but it has no effect on whether truth can be determined, or what we might do instead if it can't, does it? — Pattern-chaser

Truth is difficult and may very well be impossible because we are humans lacking the perspective to see things as they actually are. But we have reasoning, tools, and methods to actually understand beyond what we can experience and see without such tools. We know about atoms and quantum physics, even though we have no way of detecting them by only ourselves as humans. But because we have the tools, we know how to use atoms and quantum physics and our inventions out of that knowledge show us that we can actually know things we can't detect by only ourselves.

When it comes to reasoning, we have the power of logic. If someone abandons logic because they have a belief they want to be true, that is not the pinnacle of human understanding.

We have limits to what we can know, but people rarely even try to reach those limits. It's only at the limits of our understanding where we can deduce the truth-value of anything. If there are any doubts, we haven't reached that pinnacle. And flawed reasoning, flaws in logic, irrational beliefs and so on are not even close to that pinnacle, it's at the bottom.

Atheism is more of a belief that the knowledge that can be extracted from the unknown is reliable. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not a belief. Atheism just accepts what we observe, prove and measure to be known, the unknown is fascinating, but there's never a belief like described and not as you describe. Atheists do not just accept data to be reliable, the difference is that theists just conclude that fact with "...and therefore God", which is a lot worse as a rational stance than "we have enough data to have a scientific theory". The fact that no theists has been able to act upon their conclusions while scientific theories has been acted upon countless of times shows that there's more reliability in what we actually can know about the universe than anything else.

So it's not a simplistic caricature of atheism, the idea that atheists blindly rely on data extracted. It's that we can actually use the data. But that doesn't mean anything can be defined as deductive truth from it. This is the main core of theists arguments, that because we have that doubt about knowledge... "therefore God". Atheism is just accepting the world as we know it, as we can know it, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism doesn't need fantasy to explain anything. Relying on fantasy is unnecessarily complicated if we want to understand more about everything. It's like an Occam's razor for perspective.

The difference between faith and belief: faith is a fixed and necessary position; belief is amendable, and any alteration in understanding has the potential to change one's belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

Which is why I never use belief in relation to atheism, since the theistic perspective of atheism is always through the lens of their own belief. Belief can be anything outside of God, Gods, spiritual etc. but in terms of atheism and theism, belief has a clear definition and any claim that relates any kind of belief to atheism is a misunderstanding of what atheism really is.

Clearing out things, faith is not wishful thinking or delusion, because faith is belief in the unknown — SethRy

But faith is rarely that. Faith, as in religion, is a belief in something very specific. Faith in the unknown, or rather a fascination with the unknown is somewhat closer to atheism. In atheism, accepting the unknown as an uncharted territory is one of the interesting and intriguing parts of not relying on faith in God for anything. Where theists find atheism to be like a black hole of nothingness, that being an atheist is to have this empty void of meaninglessness, I rarely find atheists to have such depressing outlooks. It might also be why many theists have a hard time accepting anything outside of their belief because doing so is like staring into a void. It's scary to lose all sense of a grand meaning to everything. However, there's little sense in philosophy to let emotions guide logical and rational reasoning. Anyone who use themselves, their feelings and personal liking as proof of anything has only flawed arguments to show.

The trouble with truth is that, if you are too demanding about the quality (?) of the truth you seek, you will find nothing. Many issues do not contain Truth in the sense we might prefer, so we have to find ways of discovering and using approximations, unsatisfactory though that may be. — Pattern-chaser

Of course, however, people use this as a cop-out in order to not have to scrutiny their theories. They misuse the fact that absolute truth might be impossible in order to imbue their incomplete logic and reasoning with more truth-value than it has. It's the "because you can never know what is truly true, I'm not wrong" reasoning, which is a philosophically infantile method of reasoning.

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — EnPassant

Belief can never be solid ground for a philosophical conclusion. Even justified true belief means a form of belief that has major support in reasoning and rational arguments. An argument for the necessity of belief can be made, without flaws, since it's about the nature of belief and it's necessity for humans in psychological areas. However, if someone can't make a coherent argument that is free from biases and fallacies, it's flawed. All arguments so far for any kind of spiritual reality or god/gods have failed in their reasoning. The so-called "proof" for god/gods and the spiritual by theists conclusions in philosophical arguments always include biases and fallacies. A jump to a conclusion, circular arguments etc. If someone is to put forth an argument for the spiritual, god/gods etc. they need to do so without flaws. In what way do you propose that the spiritual can be coherently argued for? I'd like to see an argument which demonstrates this without requiring believing in the conclusion before it's argued.

The observations I've made is that it can trigger an experience of constant deja vu. I.e you experience something and you remember it happened before but didn't. With a bit more you get the same sensation with muscles, making the choice to move your arm feels like it happens after you move the arm. It makes the jaw feel strange when speaking since the conscious speak feels like happening after the mouth forms the words.

I was thinking about the effect THC has on patients with severe Parkinson's disease. Studies have shown that they regain a lot of control over their muscles and movements after taking it. By my observations, it might be that Parkinson's disease disjoints the nerve signals so that the intention to move and the movement gets fractured and overlap. So after my observations, the separation of intention to move and the movement itself might be why patients with Parkinson's disease experience an improvement in movement, since the overlapping and disjointed nerve signals separate so far between intention and movement that it no longer overlaps as much as without it.

Welcome to Internet forums. :wink: — Wayfarer

Supposedly the forum rules here recommend following philosophical practice. I think mods accept way too many low-quality posts sometimes. I would like to see this forum be far beyond what Reddit, Twitter, Facebook etc. is, which it ain't sometimes.

Everyone just started to be baffled and attack my claim that theism, is and deserves to be in the table of philosophy. — SethRy

So back to your claim. If theism should deserve to be in the table of philosophy, it requires to be under the same level of scrutiny as every other field. However, as long as theists continue with flaws in their reasoning with biases and fallacies, that's not possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

And my arguments have nothing to do with evangelisation, I don't want to evangelise any of you. But the pursuit of truth requires argument, and as far as I know that is all I am providing. — SethRy

And you need to change your argument if there are valid counter-arguments. If you have a theistic point of view it doesn't matter if others are atheists, you need to convince even atheists of your argument and you cannot complain that "atheists just don't understand these things", that is not valid. If you get counter-arguments, adapt and change your initial argument taking into account those counter-arguments. If you can convince an atheist of your argument, it is sound and reasoned rationally, if not, there are flaws. Not because atheists hold a different perspective, but because, as seen plenty of times on this forum, theists tend to disregard standard praxis of argumentation.

To add, I think theism is just moved by perspectives that acclaim labeling us as delusional, or beliefs being unjustified - and I will expect people to affirm that into its as-a-matter-of-factness. — SethRy

No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. The delusional part is when theists try to force everyone to accept a flawed argument just because they believe it. That's the delusional part. No one serious with philosophy will just accept someone's theistic perspective and conclusion because they rant about how convinced they are their belief is true. And plenty have flaws in their argument from which they defend them through a total bias towards their belief and when pointing out that bias they get angry and act irrationally.

Want theism to be part of philosophy in the way you propose? Then play by the same rules as everyone else. It's tedious to hear theistic rants while all other topics in philosophy get broken down to their smallest pieces in order to expose flaws. Theism doesn't get a free pass, not because people think it's delusional, but because the actual arguments won't hold and the theist's defense of those arguments becomes delusional and disregarding all standard methods of reasoning in philosophy.

And to return to your initial question: "Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?"

Read Russel, understand how burden of proof works. Many theists twist burden of proof to be something it's not. An unfalsifiable claim cannot be made on an initial unfalsifiable claim. There is the first claim and if that claim does not have any proof, then any discussion after it is irrelevant. Atheists ask for evidence of God because the initial claim is that God or Gods exist. The answer to your question has already been answered in philosophy, you might need to read more about it before putting forth your argument. We're just hinting at the answers to your question.

You're being ridiculous. I'm not evangelizing. That's libel, and you're just being an ass. — Noah Te Stroete

You aren't adapting to the counter-arguments, you ignore them and continues to hold the same ground, defending your pure belief. Evangelizing is to just rant your own point of view and belief without any regard for adapting to valid counter-arguments. This is a very common theistic viewpoint, start using biases and fallacies, start applying "you too" arguments when questioned instead of actual scrutiny of your argument. Most theists in here aren't doing philosophy, they're just ranting their belief and how everyone else should shut up because... reasons. Personally, I think it's an epidemic. There are far more evangelical religious new threads started on this forum than anything else. It's like every thread turns into an attempt to explain why first cause arguments fail in their theistic conclusion or how burden of proof really works. The spamming nature of theists on this forum is very much evangelical and it's not allowed. If you don't want to do that, then listen to the counter-arguments.

You need to convince even atheists with your argument and if you can't it's flawed, simple as that. If you don't, then it's not philosophy, then your evangelic about your belief and just want to spam that belief.

I claimed what I believe. It may be true, it may not. Just like your atheistic beliefs. — Noah Te Stroete

My atheistic "beliefs" are not beliefs. I don't accept something as true without any support for it being true. That's not belief, it's the lack of belief, the lack of belief in anything unsupported. Now you're just doing a straw man attempt by trying to attack atheism when it has nothing to do with your unsupported belief. Your belief is also irrelevant within philosophy, you need more than mere belief. You can try and justify it however you want, but the truth is that you fail basic philosophy through the way you reason your argument. And now you're just being stubborn instead of improving your argument. That's called evangelism and it's not allowed on this forum. If you want to rant your personal beliefs with no interest in listening to counter-arguments, go to Twitter, Facebook or some religious forum.

There IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF in abductive reasoning. — Noah Te Stroete

And abductive reasoning is a very weak form of reasoning that can't be used to arrive at truths. If you use abductive reasoning to arrive at true conclusions, you fail to understand when to use abduction.

Fuck Russel. — Frank Apisa

Really? You're pretty insignificant compared to his contribution to philosophy and you pretty much ignore him just because it's convenient for you. If that's the level you want to hold the discussion, then goodbye.

Yet, what someone has done in life means nothing if they can't present an argument that is convincing and listening to the counter-arguments being said, changing the initial argument.

Philosophy is more about challenging one's own ideas to improve them, change them, find the truth closest to humanly possible through rational thinking. But most philosophical discussions I witness tend to be evangelical rants in some vague attempt to pick a fight online or some other trivial reason.

When my head feels like burning because I get challenged by really good counter-arguments, I know my knowledge is improving. If not, it's usually a waste of time.

I wasn't always this way. I just don't care as much as I once did. In fact, my giving-a-fuck factor has gone down exponentially in the last decade. — Noah Te Stroete

That can be true for personal things, but I don't think it's preferable for philosophy. If people want trivialities, there's Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on to be lazy on. Being lazy in philosophical discourses means you really get nothing out of it and just spam discussions with irrelevant stuff. In the end, what do you want to accomplish with participating in philosophy discussions?

I’m an extremely lazy person. — Noah Te Stroete

Hard to do philosophy like that though, especially the hard questions.

Atheists who aren't philosophically-educated are just as troublesome in this regard, though, because they wind up saying silly things like "I don't have beliefs," "I don't believe that there is a refrigerator in my kitchen; I know there is," etc.

All you need to do with theists is to explain that knowledge isn't belief simpliciter. It's a qualified species of belief. — Terrapin Station

Completely agree. I mean, anti-vaccers doesn't have to be religious and theists to possess bullshit ideas. The important thing is to just disregard both theism and atheism as tribalist concepts and always aim for rational, reasonable arguments with evidence.

Nevertheless, knowledge isn't different than belief. It's a qualified species of belief. — Terrapin Station

This is the part that I, not necessarily object to, but which I mean muddies the waters for those who aren't knowledgable in philosophy. They use "knowledge isn't different than belief" as proof that belief has the same position of truth as claims rooted in rational reasoning, evidence and so on. Maybe a new terminology of knowledge based on supporting information with high scrutiny of skepticism should be named in order not to be confused with "belief", as just by looking at this forum, many get confused by.

Knowledge is jtb. If you're trying to provide an alternate definition, "Knowledge is knowledge (information) that you know" isn't a very good one. — Terrapin Station

No, I'm not. I'm saying that JTB is often overused as a counter argument every time someone talks about the search for knowledge. The use of JTB in arguments is often using a simplification of it and pointing out the "belief"-part in JTB as a defense against unsupported irrational belief. JTB is not about unsupported belief, which is the kind of belief that has nothing else proving it than the will of the believer for it to be true.

Where do they teach post-modernism outside of itself as a philosophical foundation?

By implication, it also means that some teach anti-post-modernism without knowing anything about philosophy. Have you seen the infantile arguments between the two sides? It's tribalism

What in "knowledge is information that you know", is unclear? Knowledge is information, just as in the dictionary you linked. I said that "knowledge is information that you know". Perhaps it's rather defined wrongly by adding that "you know", knowledge can be found, meaning you don't know it yet. However, knowledge implies something to know, meaning that it's not just information. Information can be defined as a substance that defines something, like "there is information in DNA". Knowledge, however, is about what we can know, it's information that we can store as memory information about the world. To know about things is to have knowledge.

Please explain further then, according to my initial post you answered to.

"Know" is what we're defining. "Knowledge" is a grammatical permutation of "know" (or vice versa) — Terrapin Station

Knowledge is not truth. But the search for "true knowledge" or rather knowledge of truth is a virtue. That journey does not mean someone knows the truth, it means they don't accept "truths" out of comfort.

Oh dear, another believer of truth. Might as well believe in God. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ad hominem like fallacy there. What's your point? I couldn't care less for vague responses like this.