Originally posted by VoidSpirit
actually, you are the one using a non-standard definition of knowledge and that is the source of the semantic misunderstanding.
looking up the word in merriam-webster, there is no "belief" in the definition of knowledge. even following up on the other thread of terms to describe knowledge... we get terms of: knowing, apprehend, cognition, association, ...[text shortened]... o say "the sum of what is known by humanity" rather than "the sum of human knowledge."
Unfortunately, Merriam-Webster is not an authority on the alternative uses of words in different domains of discourse, where they are quite standard: e.g. epistemology. The standard definition of “knowledge” in western philosophy is "justified true belief".
Nor is Merriam-Webster an authority on how writers of koine Greek a couple of millennia ago used
their words in another particular domain of discourse.
[I realize that we use the phrase “standard English” to refer to a common usage, exclusive of, say, slang and locally restricted colloquialisms, etc.. But that is pretty much all that it means.]
There is no universal “one size fits all” standard across all domains of discourse. Different areas of knowledge—philosophy, physics, mathematics, economics, medicine— have different standards, even within the same language; and in each there are likely to be words borrowed, not only from common usage, but from other specialties—but given new meanings, or at least new nuances of meaning. Each domain of discourse has different “language games”, as Wittgenstein called them. And the meanings of their terms is not always readily transferable—or reducible to a common standard.