There should be absolutely no room for any kind of personal distinction between the two.
Knowledge can be proven.
Faith/belief cannot be proven.

If you can prove something is real then you cannot believe in it.
I don't believe the moon is real because I have knowledge that it is indeed real, and I can prove it by telling you to just look at it.
I cannot factually know that God doesn't exist because I cannot prove that using any kind of experiment or test, so I cannot "know" that it's true no matter how strong my belief in that statement is.

Any "personal definition" of either of those is factually wrong. If we could all walk around with our own personal meanings behind concepts we wouldn't have a functional language.

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.

knowledge is provable, repeatable, demonstratable. faith is by its very nature none of those.

We just choose who to believe, I don't KNOW how computers work, I've just chosen to believe it's thinking sand and not some kind of ghosts/magic, I don't even have tools or any other means to test it, I mean why we even trust those IT guys in the age of internet, when the access to knowledge is abundant it's weird there's no conspiracy theories about that, like we see now in all others domains, bunch of armchair specialists sitting in their parents basements knowing better than specialists about medicine, climate, earth shape and everything

From many perspectives the two are the same and that ís a huge problem

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.

I would say that beliefs are unprovable, and knowledge is provable. If I claim the sun will rise tomorrow, we can test that. If I claim god exists but is hiding, we cannot test that. The former is knowledge, the latter belief

That's a pretty simple distinction, but you've asked for us to define abstract concepts without using definitions or abstract concepts. So let's just say, knowledge is what you know and beliefs are what you believe. A belief implies some level of doubt, while knowledge is just the information you have in your head. There is a lot of overlap. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, because I understand how the earth rotates and orbits the sun. I believe it will happen because I understand physics and observable phenomena. Put it another way, it is a high-confidence belief based on the knowledge obtained through observation and study. Some beliefs are based on nothing more than hope, and some knowledge is beyond any doubt. I believe the Phillies can win the World Series, but I know our bullpen pitches cantaloupes and our hitters are streaky as shit.

Knowledge = Belief + Evidence

What really matters is how good of a critical thinker you are, and what you'll accept as evidence, but if you're decently educated, you should be able to manage it. The key is not accepting secondhand evidence from untrustworthy sources, and to seek firsthand evidence that you can see with your own eyes.

As for "Objective Truth", that doesn't exist. Not only are our experiences obligatorily filtered through our subjective human perceptions, but relativity allows for multiple conflicting truths to exist simultaneously in spacetime, so it literally can't exist, and even if it could, we would be blind to it.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so the dialectical theory of knowledge. What starts as ideas are tested and confirmed or denied in reality, which then sharpens ideas to be retested and confirmed or denied in reality again, in a spiral. Ideas come from real, material conditions, and it is through this cycle that theory meets practice, sharpening each more effectively.

Knowledge is evidence based and has certainty based off of repeatable observable data. Belief is educated hope, based on the unknown when compared to the known.

I don't classify ideas in my head into those two categories like that. They are all beliefs. I have a sense of how confident I am of each idea. Like how surprised I would be if they were proved wrong. And I try to maintain awareness of why I have that confidence, like other beliefs that support it, evidence, etc.

That's imperfect, like I can't claim that there aren't ideas that, if challenged, I'd think about what my supporting evidence is and come up with bupkis. Anything is up for doubt and reevaluation.

I feel pretty strongly that this is the right approach, and that people failing to have a similar approach is a serious problem in the world.

There is an overlap though, but first I'll answer your question.

Belief is anything you take as a truth, often without any means of proof. There are conscious beliefs and I guess subconscious ones.

Knowledge is anything you are aware of; your personal recollection of life data.

Therefore anything you consciously believe in requires you to first acquire knowledge of it.

Things get complicated because we usually take in most knowledge as facts and truths, which means we believe in a lot of what we know. But it's not easy to always know which knowledge actually doesn't represent reality.

Belief doesn't need confirmation, but knowledge assumes some confirmation.

Degree of certainty is the difference

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 think everyone inhabits a sort of superposition of all possible worlds consistent with their sensory observations. But there are some of those possible worlds with which I identify more strongly—where I feel more myself. So belief is a kind of probability multiplied by self-recognition.

For example: “We believe these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal”, etc.—it’s not an assertion of objective truth, it’s a declaration of which world we choose to live in.

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.

Probably doesn't answer your question completely, but I'm a big fan of the phrase "my understanding is . . . " In other words, this is what I "know" as fact, but I'm aware that my knowledge could be wrong or insufficient and I'm willing to be corrected or updated. I use this phrase almost any time I'm asserting something as fact, as a kind of cya.

Knowledge is what happens when you've evaluated enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that something is false. If you haven't seen the evidence, but still think it's true or false (you don't lack belief), then you have a belief about it. As such, knowledge is a type of belief with extra justification.

If I've reviewed enough evidence I'm comfortable saying I can reject the null hypothesis, that is I have a belief that it's knowledge, I'll call it as such. If I haven't, I'll couch my confidence in my belief accordingly.

For me it's the difference between a preponderance of evidence suggesting such, and something being applied and proven until any doubt is removed.

For example, I was trying to find studs in drywall recently (last house was plaster and lathe), and looking at things Socratically, I could use a stud finder but I might be drilling into conduit or a pipe. So I was like "I can use magnets to hit drywall screws to try to confirm the presence of a stud", and it seems reasonable, but I've never attempted it in practice, and there could be all sorts of things a magnet could hit, since I've no experience with drywall, how close a steel pipe could be, any of that. So it's a belief. It'd be rather arrogant of me to accept this as a reliable method without testing this method, drill through a pipe and wind up with egg on my face.

So, I tested this by getting two magnets to stick vertically, then measured 16" out, got 2 more magnets to stick vertically, kept doing that until I hit half a dozen spots, all 16" apart. Drilled a pilot hole, felt resistance and the smell of wood, drilled a couple more.

I think somewhere between mounting a flat screen to fixing 3 closet shelves it became knowledge, not sure exactly when, but all the doubts were removed and it never blew up in my face. I can just waltz in a room and sink a bunch of holes in the right spot now without being skeptical of some electronic stud finder.

I guess what I mean to say is that testing something and having it consistently work and be reproducible is what leads to knowledge imo

Belief regards opinions, in which people have a free choice to accept or reject the idea. There is no notion of rightness or wrongness.

Knowledge regards conclusions from a set of axioms, in which people who accept the axioms are honor-bound to accept the conclusions. To reject the conclusion while accepting the axioms would be wrong.

In my life, this governs when I can freely choose and when I am obliged to accept a claim based on whether I've accepted previous claims.

For me, everything is a belief unless it satisfies the following criteria:

1. It is generally accepted as true among experts
2. There is ample evidence that is both personally convincing and leaves no room for alternate interpretations (not the same as #1, since many fields have "commonly accepted knowledge" that is generally acknowledged as most likely true but has no evidence to back it up)
3. It is specific enough that it cannot be interpreted in a way that is misleading

I find that the one that trips up most people is #3, since some people speak in technically true but overly broad statements and the listener ends up filling in the gaps with their own biases. The listener leaves feeling like their biases have been confirmed by data, not realizing that they have been misled.

In the end, according to my criteria, very little can be categorized as true knowledge. But that's fine. You can still make judgements from partial or biased data or personal beliefs. You just can't be resolute about it and say that it's true.

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.

Belief is seeing that the light is green even when it isn't.

Knowledge is accepting that the light is red when it is.

Believing that the light is green will not help you when you get flattened by a truck. Knowing that the light is red will keep you from dying pointlessly.

Knowledge is the first step on the path to wisdom. Belief is delusion.

If you cannot demonstrate, or point to a demonstration, then all you can do is guess. You can make an educated guess based on other demonstrations, but if you cling to your guesswork as if it were demonstrated to be true, and you internalize your guesswork as part of your identity, and you refuse to let go of it when confronted with contradictory demonstrations, then you are a fool.

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)

I want to know how it works in real life for you.

What works for me in real life is know as little as possible, view all beliefs as clouds moving across the sky