Long before philosopher, Edmund Gettier came along, knowledge was thought to be equal to justified true belief, which is to say that: “You know p iff, i) p is true, ii) you believe that p, iii) and you are justified in believing that p” (Gettier, 1963)
However, Gettier argued that ‘p’ cannot simply be known because you are justified in believing that ‘p’. He proposed several counter-examples to the Justified True Belief theory (JTB theory) and they are known as Gettier cases. In this paper, I aim to explain how a Gettier-style case spells trouble for the view that knowledge is justified true belief. Gettier’s main objective wasn’t to solve the mishaps behind the JTB theory, however other philosophers took it upon themselves to use Gettier’s
…show more content…
Each of his cases rely on the premises not necessarily having to be true, but by chance it being true. To exemplify, in the case of the ‘fake barn country’, it was by sheer chance that the man was standing in front of one of the very last standing barns which then made his belief a JTB. Gettier’s main point of argument was based on the factor of sufficiency when it came to the JTB theory. He was skeptical on the fact that a mere justification of a belief was adequate to identify knowledge as this would mean that a truth can be implied by a falsehood producing a false …show more content…
Also known as counterfactual conditions, the two conditions are ----. If I then apply Nozick’s theory to the previously mentioned Gettier-style case of the barn country, the proposition ‘the man is looking a real barn’ can be further analyzed:
The man knows that he is looking at a real barn iff:
i) He is in fact looking at a real barn, ii) He is justified in believing that it is a real barn,
The first two conditions hold thus far, however, the third condition is when one can start to understand the lack of true knowledge in the Gettier case: iii*) If the man was not looking at a real barn, he would not believe that he was looking at a real barn. But, in this case, the man did not realize that almost all the other barns were fake, therefore, he would not know the difference. The man has no real knowledge of whether he is looking at a real
It was a lot of ideas going around on what he was trying to prove and who he was trying to prove it
Her second premises states “If I can conceive of a particular scenario occurring, then that scenario is possible” (306) and in her paper, she breaks it down. She asks the question: is something actually possible just because I can conceive it? In the beginning of her article she discusses a “thought experiment” which she laid out a few examples of possible scenarios, one being “you have never encountered a married bachelor.” She takes this scenario apart and says to try to imagine an unmarried bachelor, and “you find you cannot because you cannot conceive of a married bachelor because your concept bachelor includes the concept unmarried, and nothing that satisfies that concept can simultaneously satisfy the concept married” (305). The idea to conceive an unmarried bachelor is not possible because a bachelor is unmarried.
In the 1963 philosophy paper titled “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Edmund Gettier attempts to deconstruct and disprove the philosophical argument that justified true belief is knowledge. Justified true belief, also commonly referred to as JTB, is used as a certain set of conditions that are used to explain someone s knowing some sort of proposition p. More specifically, JTB is used to say that s has knowledge of p if and only if p is true, s believes that p is true, and s is justified in believing that p is true. Gettier offers main points as the conclusion of his argument against this claim. First, he states that s can be justified in believing that p is true while p is actually false.
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.
Id. Relocation of the condition does not make a difference in its condition. Id. Norton demonstrates that Herrera is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in this action. Like the hedge in Norton, Herrera’s land art remained a natural condition—despite its relocation. In Norton, the property owners planted a hedge. Relocating a hedge does not change the fact that it still remains a hedge.
Different Epistemological Approaches To The Existence Of Whoville In the children’s book, Horton Hears A Who by Dr Seuss, many distinct characters represent various diverged Epistemological points of view. There are three Epistemological approaches that the characters in the story use.
Some feel very strongly about what they know to be certain. Some feel certain about religion, others about love. In Oscar Wilde’s book The Picture of Dorian Gray a character, Lord Henry Wotton, says this, : “The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true. That is the fatality of Faith, and the lesson of romance” (181). The truth one knows does not always prove to be certain.
In this essay, Elbow leans towards the believing game and tries to persuade the reader to leave the doubting game behind. Elbow states rules for each game that are used to form a plausible conclusion. The
John Collier demonstrates that Big Simon is a convincing character as he is convincing with his consistency of actions, is clearly motivating in what he does, and is lifelike as he tries to manipulate Small Simon. In “Thus I Refute Beelzy,” Big Simon is a convincing character with his consistency of actions when he tries to manipulate Small Simon. Big Simon does this when he tries to tell
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.
Clifford argues that all beliefs must be justified. In his writing, The Ethics of Belief, Clifford states that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe in anything upon insufficient evidence” (Clifford 5). Clifford means that it is morally wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence. This can be a problem when one examines the very definition of belief. A belief is a thought, which may have a foundation in reality, but does not require it.
In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Descartes’ Cogito Argument and my reasoning to validate it as indubitable. I will do so by justifying my interpretations through valid arguments and claim, by showcasing examples with reasoning. Rene Descartes is a French Philosopher of the 17th century, who formulated the philosophical Cogito argument by the name of ‘cogito ergo sum,’ also known as “I think, therefore, I am.” Rene was a skeptic philosopher amongst many scholastic philosophers of his time. To interpret his cogito argument as indubitable and whether it could serve as a foundational belief, he took a skeptical approach towards the relations between thoughts and existence.
I find that areas of knowledge based on sense perception often require constant consensus and consistent disagreement to ensure that the developed knowledge is robust. Alternatively, if the main way of knowing is faith, such as in religion or mathematics (believing in the closed axiomatic system), then there is no disagreement, yet the claims are irrefutable because they are based in faith, and as such, once accepted allow knowledge to be created and justified through all standards of truth. My response to this claim that “robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement” is that I agree with a modified version of this title, that robust knowledge from areas of knowledge based in sense perception requires both consensus and
The following essay responds to question 5): Gettier’s 1963 paper Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? challenges the traditional formulation of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). The JTB analysis provides that one knows P given the sufficient and necessary conditions that: P is true; one believes that P is true; and one is justified in believing P (Gettier 1963). Gettier provides two cases in which all three conditions that constitute the JTB analysis of knowledge are fulfilled, yet, they do not seem to entail knowledge, and thus concludes that the conditions outlined do not constitute a sufficient condition for knowledge. In this essay, I will examine the dependence of Gettier’s argument on the assumptions he makes At the beginning
One of the main features of this theory is that "truth” consists