Plato’s issue of mere belief vs. true knowledge come from his distaste for Gorgias and the sophists as a whole.  In Plato’s Gorgias, he writes of a conversation deciding who would win a senate physician chair.  Gorgias says that the rhetor would be able to win the seat over a career physician because he has the power to persuade the voters.  Given that each of the men are ignorant of the other’s field of study, the rhetor will be able to convince the ignorant audience that they know more than the physician who has not been trained in the art of speaking.  In this example, the audience has a mere belief in two major areas, 1) what the senate physician needs to know to be effective and 2) what both the rhetor and the physician know about medicine.  Each of the men have true knowledge of their own field and simply a mere belief of the other’s, meaning that it would be difficult to talk for hours or deliberate on a mere belief.

In terms of justice, many people in a court do not have the true knowledge of the cases and will therefore be swayed by a mere belief that is well structured and well said by a rhetor.  The rhetoricians are persuaded by using a wide belief rather than facts and knowledge.  By only using beliefs instead of the true knowledge, the punishment or lack there of may nnot be the correct outcome.  Plato said, “rhetoric is… not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit, which knows how to manage mankind: this habit I sum up under the word ‘flattery’.”