How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true?

By using different ways of knowing, we can distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true. In order to express these distinctions, personal experiences, their implications, and their counterclaims are needed to be stated. For something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it can not be “true.” The ways of knowing that something is “true” is comprehended by one’s own perception, language, reason and emotion. With these “ways of knowing” than the “truth” can, in theory, be understood.
Perception is one of the most broad and vague ways of knowing. It is hard for someone and another to have the same “perception” of an object or event. Take example that Jimmy, a young yet intellectual boy who wears glasses, has just seen the biggest bully Bob assault the youngest and smallest kid in school Fred. Their teacher comes over and asks the three boys what happened. According to Bob, Fred fell and received the bruises that way; Fred says that he was attacked by Bob; and Jimmy states that, due to his glasses fogging up, that Bob had inflicted the pain to himself. This vagueness is why the judicial system takes so much time to resolve problems between one party and another. This has implication due our ability to not ever “know” the whole “truth”. The cause of not “knowing,” due to inability to not see “everything,” leads to the effect of problems between us and our kin based solely on our perception of the events that took place. According to the definition of “truth” is that it must be public, eternal and independent and thus begins the problems of “knowing” between Jimmy, Bob, and Fred. The fact that there was a fight and Jimmy watch is public and everyone “knows” thus the first part of “truth” is correct. Eternal works as well due to that point in time there was an incident between those three boys. Lastly it was independent from all outside sources, however the problem arises with what is “true” and who believes that their story is “true.” Bob believes it was not his fault; Fred believes that he was attacked by Bob; and Jimmy believes that Fred did it all to himself. This causes the problem of who “knows” the “truth.” The teacher, being unbiased of course, has no real way of “knowing” who the culprit is based off what the children believe to be “true”. This has global implications as well for cultures perceive things differently than that of another culture. Take example the United States and Japan; the United States shakes each other hands when greeting someone politely were as in Japan they would bow to each other first. This could cause a massive global conflict if for example the United States offends the Japanese Councilor at the United Nations due to not bowing when greeting. As a counterclaim, someone could say that just using perception as a tool for “knowing” is simple not enough. Also perception just is not solely based off the ability of someone to see something but the usage of all five senses. The ability to use the five senses would be the correct way in order to learn the “true.” There is no real way of “knowing” something solely off the assumption of our perception and there is no real “truth,” rather just a collection of “believed truths” that we choose to be the “truth.” Vladimir Lenin stated that “a lie told often enough become the truth.” We want to believe that we have found the “truth” and we will not stop look for that “truth.” Yet how can we communicate this “knowledge?” Thus we need the usage of language and its imprecations in “truth.”
Language plays an important role in our lives. We created this tool to pass on the “knowledge” of others, empirical, and thru this we “learn.” With Vladimir Lenin’s previous quote can be applied to language as well. The winners of wars are the one’s that create the history. It happens to every culture and every civilization that every existed with the ability to record their history. This has global implications that can be recognized off the fact that if a war were to be started and ended than the victory most like would right about how “morally righteous” their country was and how their opposition, the losing country, was. Now as a counter argument to that claim would be that maybe the country was “telling the truth” but then we are right back to the beginning in where “how do we really know what we know?” Can that country account for every action that each one of its civilians, and, or army infantry did during the course of the war? Most likely neither county could. Therefore they can not “truly know” based off their beliefs or their “truths.” This in conjecture with perception is adequate but not 100 per cent sufficient in “knowing” something. We add a third way of knowing: reason.
Reasoning skills are a hard thing to explain about it terms of how we “know” something. Some things can be taught and thus learned by reasoning: putting your hand down on a hot pan thus teaches us to not do it again because it hurts. However when it comes to reasoning skills with moral can be hard to comprehend. One person may see that killing a human is wrong, were as a military general may see the killing of a human a necessity. Bishop Beilby Porteus states that “one murder made a villain; millions a hero.” Is he telling the “truth?” Do we glorify war? The implication of reasoning is of the greatest importance because it literally comes down to our inner instincts. In contrast how should we let our animalistic emotions control us or should we have a higher level of “knowledge?” Can any creature or object ever obtain such a thing? Do we or will we ever “know?” In my option, I believe not; then again what do I “know?”
Emotion is the final piece to the puzzle of knowledge. With the raw passion with what emotion is cannot be simply summed up or described with words along. How can we describe what an emotion is between people? Take for example the emotion of “love.” One passionate couple may explain there definition of what “love” is, however if a restaurant owner was asked the same question he or she may say that their “love” is their restaurant. Hence this gives us the emotion of sympathy towards dictionary writers. Describing such a raw and passionate feeling is incredible. Globally how can one culture translate the emotion of “love” from one culture to another? Our love could not possibly be the same as someone in Russia or India. Is emotion something that we are born with, or grow into? We will never “know,” yet this is the final piece of ways of knowing and thus while using all four pieces of “knowledge” stills leaves us with the belief that we will never “truly know.”
The difference between truth and believed truth can only be answered thru the ways of knowing. The problem is that there is more than one answer. By assuming that there is a finite answer undermines the whole idea of our “ways of knowing.” The age old question of the creation of life has been the greatest battle between science and religion. Who is to say that one side is “right” and one side is “wrong” when we ourselves do not even “know.” There is no “obtainable truth”, only the “truth” that we “believe to be true.”

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact.
Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” -Marcus Aurelius