Edmund Gettier's Article: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?

In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith?, she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.

The knowledge argument was created by Frank Jackson who was a great philosopher in the 1980’s. His argument is one the most discussed and important in philosophy. Frank Jackson’s argument is known as Mary’s room or Mary the super-scientist which is a philosophical thought experiment. In the whole experiment he argues against physicalism because everything is seen as physical or supervenes to physical. He says that this is false with the existence of consciousness.

In the Non-fiction book, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus, Charles Mann aims to debunk an array of beliefs about Native Americans that most scholars once insisted were true. Mann’s research suggests that the native people of the Americas are more intelligent and sophisticated than previously predicted, live in higher numbers and greatly impact the natural landscape. The book is split into three parts: Numbers from Nowhere, Very Old Bones, and Landscapes with Figures. These parts focus on the population, culture, origins and the environment. Mann builds his arguments by reassessing a myriad of pre-existing views about the Americas prior to 1492. He then uses his new findings to prove his theories. This informative read provides

Nick Riggle is the author of “High Five!” He is a writer and a philosopher. Riggle is an assistant professor in the department of philosophy at the University of San Diego. His work has appeared on McSweeney’s Internet Tendency. In his article, he claims that being awesome is the desired achievement for many people and that it is the proclaimed antonym of “sucking”. He also mentions that a “high five” is a gesture of showing appreciation. He provides the readers with an interesting clever main argument; however, he does not provide enough reasoning to support his sub-arguments. Furthermore, he occasionally uses misleading examples that weaken his argument instead of supporting it.

In Elliot Sober’s book, “Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings”, it is crucial to note that Sober categorizes beliefs into three distinct categories or levels ranging from one to three. To start off, the category of “first-level beliefs” encompasses any sort of indubitable or first-person psychological belief. Secondly, the category of “second-level beliefs” are beliefs which are composed from present and past observations. Lastly, “third-level

Theodore Roosevelt once said “Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” Everyone will struggle at some point in their life and how they handle these struggles can either bring a positive or negative outcome. Peter Elbow’s essay “The Doubting Game and the Believing Game-An Analysis of the Intellectual Enterprise” describes the believing and doubting game and the effects they can have on a person. I have personally struggled academically in Advanced Placement physics. By choosing the believing game,I was able to overcome this struggle and was given a deeper understanding on how to deal with future issues. In order to examine how the believing game can bring a positive outcome compared to the doubting game, Elbow’s essay needs to be examined. My personal experience will be shared, and I will discuss why believing had a positive impact and left me with a deeper understanding.

Humans are unlike any other creature on this planet, as we are able to think and reason. These two abilities have created the most powerful minds ever known such as, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Plato. These abilities have also lead to some powerful arguments one of such being our beliefs. Some philosophers believe that all beliefs must be justified, while others believe that only some of our beliefs must be justified. W.K. Clifford argues that it is morally wrong to act or believe without sufficient evidence. This means Clifford was an evidentialist. William James argues that sometimes it is allowed to believe without sufficient evidence.

Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian Gordon S. Wood published his work The Radicalism of the American Revolution in 1991. In this book, he argues that, contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was a socio-politically radical event. Wood describes various factors and outcomes that evidence the Revolution’s radicalism, and how it was the most far-reaching event of American history. In his thesis, he conveys that the Revolution’s radical influence on society has generally been disregarded by historians, that radicalism is defined by shifts in people’s relationships, that the Revolution sought societal change through political reform, and that it was the most influential and radical factor in creating a liberal, modern America.

William K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” is an essay about justification and how we are morally required to prove our beliefs. Clifford’s theory throughout the essay was “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford thinks that it is a moral obligation for you to confirm each of your beliefs with sufficient proof, no matter how questionable or insignificant the beliefs may be. I believe he thinks this because beliefs have serious effects and consequences on others.

Gettier, through the use of two cases, proves that the existence of justified true belief does not guarantee knowledge. In other words, that justified true belief is not a

This argument could have been justifiable only if the juror has some proofs of the argument to be true.

Nick Riggle is the author of “High Five!” He is a writer and a philosopher. Riggle is an assistant professor in the department of philosophy at the University of San Diego. His work has appeared on McSweeney’s Internet Tendency. In his article, he claims that being awesome is the desired achievement for many people and that it is the proclaimed antonym of “sucking”. He also mentions that a “high five” is a gesture of showing appreciation. He provides the readers with an interesting clever main argument; however, he does not provide enough reasoning to support his sub-arguments. Furthermore, he occasionally uses misleading examples that weaken his argument instead of supporting it.

Edmund Gettier is quite confusing in his story “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge”. He says that there are many cases where you have a story and it gives you the run around with the facts. Saying that this is true only if this certain thing is true and if that is not true the second or third thing down that list is true. He has good examples in his paper but is that always the case will there always be adequate evidence for the explanation for the reasoning to be wrong and move on to the next possible explanation. So he is able to justify if his other reasoning’s are proved wrong.

Identify and discuss the main features of Correspondence Theory. What are its major strengths and weaknesses?

One of Cantor's most fruitful ideas was to use a bijection to compare the size of two infinite sets. The cardinality of is not of course an ordinary number, since is infinite. It's nevertheless a mathematical object that deserves a name, so Cantor represented it by the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, , (pronounce "aleph") with a subscript of zero: ,