Philosophy for Absolute Beginners: Knowledge, Belief, and Good Reasons to Trust a Claim

1) Belief, Knowledge, Confidence (and Why You Can Act Without Certainty)

Everyday life forces you to take positions: you decide what to eat, who to trust, what to buy, and which news to share. Epistemic habits are the small, repeatable moves that help you handle claims responsibly—without needing perfect certainty.

Belief

A belief is simply taking a claim to be true (or likely true). You can believe something strongly or weakly.

• Example: “It will rain this afternoon.”
• You might believe it because the sky looks dark, or because you saw a forecast.

Knowledge

Knowledge is belief with a higher standard: it’s not just that you think it’s true, but that you have good enough reasons and the claim is in fact true. In daily life, we often use “know” loosely (“I know the bus comes at 8”), but the philosophical habit is to notice when the standard should be higher.

• Example: “The store opens at 9.” If you checked the official hours yesterday and they rarely change, you may reasonably say you know.
• Contrast: If you heard it from a stranger once, you might only believe it.

Confidence (Degrees of Credence)

Confidence is how strongly you hold a belief—your “how likely is it?” level. A useful habit is to treat confidence as a slider, not an on/off switch.

• Low confidence: “Maybe (30%).”
• Medium confidence: “Probably (60–70%).”
• High confidence: “Very likely (90%+).”

Why this matters: many decisions don’t require certainty. They require a reasonable match between (a) how confident you are and (b) what’s at stake.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Practical habit: before acting, ask: “How sure am I, and what happens if I’m wrong?” If the cost of being wrong is high, raise the bar for evidence.

2) Evidence Types and Common Pitfalls

Not all evidence is equal, and even good evidence can be handled badly. The goal is not to become cynical; it’s to become calibrated: trusting the right things for the right reasons.

Four common evidence types

1. Personal experience

Your own observations can be valuable, especially for immediate, local facts (“The stove is hot”). But personal experience is limited: it’s a small sample, and it’s easy to misread patterns.

• Neutral example: You try a new productivity method for two days and feel more focused. That’s a real experience, but it may not show the method works reliably.

2. Testimony (what others report)

Most of what you “know” comes from other people: friends, journalists, manuals, teachers. Testimony can be excellent or terrible depending on the source’s honesty, competence, and incentives.

• Neutral example: A friend says a restaurant is closed. Are they guessing, repeating someone else, or did they see a sign today?

3. Data (measurements, statistics, records)

Data can strengthen a claim, but only if it’s relevant, collected properly, and interpreted carefully.

• Neutral example: “This battery lasts 12 hours.” Is that under what settings? For which device? Under what test conditions?

4. Expert consensus

When a topic is technical and you can’t personally verify it, a strong indicator is what qualified experts broadly agree on—especially when that agreement is stable across institutions and methods.

• Neutral example: Engineering standards for bridge safety rely on accumulated expertise and testing, not one person’s opinion.

Common pitfalls (and how they show up)

Overconfidence

Overconfidence is having more certainty than your evidence supports.

• Typical sign: “I’m sure” after one example, one article, or one vivid story.
• Counter-habit: state your confidence level explicitly (e.g., “I’m about 60% on this”).

Cherry-picking

Cherry-picking is selecting only the evidence that supports your preferred conclusion while ignoring the rest.

• Typical sign: You can list supporting examples quickly, but you haven’t looked for disconfirming cases.
• Counter-habit: require yourself to find at least one plausible piece of evidence on the other side.

Motivated reasoning

Motivated reasoning happens when you unconsciously treat evidence differently depending on whether it supports what you want to be true.

• Typical sign: You demand strict proof for claims you dislike, but accept weak proof for claims you like.
• Counter-habit: ask, “If the roles were reversed, would I judge this evidence the same way?”

Quick credibility checks (lightweight but useful)

• Track record: Has this source been reliable before?
• Proximity: Did they observe it directly or repeat it?
• Incentives: Are they selling something, defending status, or seeking attention?
• Specificity: Are details testable, or is it vague and unfalsifiable?

3) A “Claim Audit” Routine You Can Reuse

When you encounter a claim, you don’t need a full investigation every time. You need a repeatable routine that scales with the stakes. Use this audit for news, advice, workplace assertions, and online posts.

Step 1: Specify the claim (make it precise enough to check)

Many disagreements are really about different versions of a claim. Turn the statement into something with clear meaning and boundaries.

• Vague: “This app is unsafe.”
• More specific: “This app shares location data with third parties by default.”
• Even more specific: “On first install, without changing settings, the app transmits precise location to advertising partners.”

Mini-check: What exactly is being asserted—about what, for whom, and under what conditions?

Step 2: Identify the source (and the chain)

Write down where the claim came from and how many steps it is from the original evidence.

• Example chain: “A coworker said their cousin read it somewhere.” That’s a long chain with many opportunities for distortion.
• Stronger chain: “The manufacturer’s documentation says X” or “A lab report measured Y.”

Mini-check: Is this first-hand observation, a summary, or a repost?

Step 3: Ask: “What would change my mind?”

This step prevents you from treating your current view as untouchable. It also reveals whether the claim is testable in practice.

• Example: “I think this product is durable.” What would change your mind? “If multiple long-term reviews report the same failure after three months,” or “If a warranty claim rate is unusually high.”

Mini-check: If nothing could change your mind, you’re not evaluating a claim—you’re protecting an identity or preference.

Step 4: Look for alternative explanations

Even when the evidence is real, the explanation might be wrong. Ask what else could produce the same observation.

• Example: “I felt better after drinking a special tea.” Alternatives: more hydration, rest, reduced stress, natural recovery, or a change in diet that happened at the same time.

Mini-check: Can the evidence fit multiple stories? If yes, lower confidence until you can discriminate between them.

Step 5: Check for scope creep (how far does the claim reach?)

Scope creep is when a claim quietly expands beyond what the evidence supports.

• Example: “This worked for me” becomes “This works for everyone.”
• Example: “Some models had defects” becomes “The brand is defective.”

Mini-check: Is the claim about this case, many cases, or all cases? Is it about short-term or long-term? Is it about most people or a subgroup?

A compact worksheet you can copy

CLAIM (precise): ________________________________
SCOPE (who/when/where): _________________________
SOURCE + CHAIN: _________________________________
EVIDENCE TYPE(S): experience / testimony / data / expert consensus
WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND?: ______________________
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS: _________________________
MY JUDGMENT: accept / reject / suspend
CONFIDENCE (0–100%): ________
WHY (1–3 sentences): _____________________________

4) Practice: Evaluate Short Claims and Write a Reasoned Judgment

Below are three short claims. For each one, do a quick claim audit and then write a judgment that includes (a) your decision (accept/reject/suspend), (b) your confidence level, and (c) the main reasons. Keep your uncertainty visible.

Practice A: Health tip

Claim: “If you drink a glass of water right after waking up, you will have more energy all day.”

• Specify: “More energy” could mean mood, alertness, or reduced fatigue. “All day” is a long duration.
• Source questions: Who says this—friend, influencer, clinician, study?
• What would change your mind: A controlled comparison (people who do vs don’t) measuring alertness; or evidence that effects are short-lived.
• Alternative explanations: Better sleep, caffeine timing, breakfast, overall hydration, expectation effects.
• Scope check: Might help some people (e.g., those dehydrated) but not “all day” for everyone.

Your written judgment (fill in): I (accept/reject/suspend) the claim with ____% confidence because ____________________________________. I would change my mind if ____________________________________.

Practice B: Rumor

Claim: “A new rule takes effect next month that bans cash payments over $100 in local stores.”

• Specify: Is it a law, a store policy, or a payment processor rule? “Local stores” is vague.
• Source questions: Is there an official announcement? Which jurisdiction?
• What would change your mind: A government notice, credible news report with citations, or direct confirmation from multiple store chains.
• Alternative explanations: Confusion with a different policy (e.g., reporting requirements, anti-fraud measures), or a single store’s policy.
• Scope check: Even if true somewhere, it may not apply broadly.

Your written judgment (fill in): I (accept/reject/suspend) the claim with ____% confidence because ____________________________________. I would change my mind if ____________________________________.

Practice C: Product review

Claim: “These noise-canceling headphones are the best on the market—worth it for everyone.”

• Specify: “Best” by what metric: noise reduction, comfort, microphone quality, battery, price?
• Source questions: Is this a verified buyer, a sponsored post, or a reviewer with measured tests?
• What would change your mind: Comparative test results across models; consistent reports of flaws; your own trial if possible.
• Alternative explanations: Reviewer’s preferences, fit differences, use-case differences (commuting vs office vs calls).
• Scope check: “For everyone” is almost always too broad; needs narrowing to a user type and budget range.

Your written judgment (fill in): I (accept/reject/suspend) the claim with ____% confidence because ____________________________________. I would change my mind if ____________________________________.

Optional: A grading rubric for your own answers