Preview

Edmund Gettier's Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1087 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Edmund Gettier's Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?
Traditional analysis of knowledge says to know that P. the following requirements must be satisfied: (1) You believe that P, (2) You have justification for P and (3) that P is true. This definition of knowledge was thought to have satisfied many philosophers for centuries after Plato, this was until philosopher Edmund Gettier wrote ‘Is justified true belief knowledge?’. In this short paper he argues that justification and truth is necessary for knowledge but not sufficient thus concluding that we need something more. Although Gettier hasn’t written anything since, there have been a number of responses that attempt to either prove the jtb theory as right, or to add or take away from the Jtb theory in order to make it a valid argument. Throughout this essay I will discuss the responses that Gettier has …show more content…
Consequently if the proposition had turned out to be false then but the subject still had his reasons then it is not knowledge. This can be used to disprove the gettier cases for example, Smith had his reasons based on perception for believing Jones had ten coins in his pocket. Now if the proposition ‘the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket turns out to be false then would Smith still have his reasons? yes he would and thus Dretske’s 4th condition is not satisfied. To no surprise Dretske’s conclusive reasons account received much criticism. It is argued that it requires the reasons to be so strong that it equates all knowledge with infallible knowledge this leads to the proposal that I wouldn’t have had these reasons for my beliefs at all unless I was right. This can be quite controversial as it leads to the thought that we don’t know a whole lot at

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In this paper, I will argue Descartes’ argument, that it is possible to gain knowledge, is flawed and incorrect. First, I will set out Descartes’ premise for believing knowledge is possible. Next, I will reintroduce his ideas in order to point out flaws and show the weakness of his position. Then, I will provide a counter to my assertions. Finally, I will give my reasons for supporting the notion that it is not possible to gain knowledge.…

    • 550 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    William K. Clifford sets out to show in “The Ethics of Belief” that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence…” In this paper, I will show that his argument lacks key definitions needed in order to found his inference upon and that it begs the question as to what qualifies as “insufficient” evidence. Furthermore, I will show that the primary issue is not the belief but the results of the belief that is important and that all judgment and interpretation should be based upon said results.…

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Plato's understanding of knowledge is justified true belief. After rejecting 2 accounts of knowledge (knowledge as perception & knowledge as true belief) , defined as KNOWLEDGE IS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF. (PG. 20)…

    • 731 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Knowledge goes beyond my personal feelings on the matter and involves the truth of things as they actually are. Truth is an indispensable component of knowledge. In this case James did get the right guess so his argument does satisfy the truth condition. Second, one must believe the statement in order to know it. For example, it's true that Elvis Presley is dead, and there is enormous evidence to back this up. But if one still believes that he is alive, he couldn't sincerely say that he knows that Elvis is dead. Part of the concept of knowledge involves our personal belief convictions about some fact, irrespective of what the truth of the matter is. In our case James does truly believe in his statement, so the belief condition is also met. Last is the justified requirement, one must be justified in believing the statement insofar as there must be good evidence in…

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant And Skepticism

    • 1759 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Immanuel Kant argued that although human knowledge comes from experience, nonetheless knowledge must be grounded in some necessary truths. It is hard to see how the existence of logically and metaphysically necessary truths is enough to ground human knowledge. Following Kant’s reasoning, there are certain types of knowledge we have no access to. I will argue that Presuppositionalism is more plausible than Kant’s skepticism about certain types of knowledge, and that from the Presuppositionalist perspective skepticism is self-refuting. If we don’t assume that God exists, we find that we can’t reach certain conclusions and are left wanting.…

    • 1759 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Knowledge is generally thought to require justified true belief, even if justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge, as Edmund Gettier famously argued. In the Meno, Plato demonstrates that true opinion is not equal to knowledge. However, Gettier holds a different opinion that justified opinion is not equal to knowledge, but it is necessary to knowledge. I support the Plato’s opinion that true opinion is not equal to knowledge, and that justified opinion is not necessary to having knowledge of something.…

    • 1669 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    In this paper, I hope to effectively summarize W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument on the ethics of belief, followed by a summary of William James’ (1897) argument on the right to believe, and finally, provide an argument for why W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger by highlighting its strengths while simultaneously arguing against William James’ (1897) argument.…

    • 2507 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Nt1310 Unit 1 Assignment

    • 361 Words
    • 2 Pages

    According to the standard account, true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. It states that knowledge requires, not only that our beliefs be true, but that we have good reasons for believing them to be true. In standard account, knowledge is justified true belief.…

    • 361 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this paper, I will argue that Roderick Chisholm fails to give an adequate solution to the problem of the criterion. According to Chisholm, the problem of the criterion is the ancient problem of “the wheel” or “vicious circle” (Chisholm, 77). Chisholm explains the problem of the criterion by stating that in order to know whether things are as they seem to be, we must have a procedure for recognizing things that are true from things that are false (Chisholm, 77). He then states that to know if the procedure is a good one, we have to know if it really recognizes things that are true from things that are false, and that we cannot know whether it really does succeed unless we already know what things are true and what things are false (Chisholm, 77). Thus, we are caught in a circle (Chisholm, 77).…

    • 586 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Among the arguments considered in this paper as rational evidence for belief in God, I found the ontological argument to be the most difficult for which to muster support. Of course I agree that…

    • 580 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Fred Dretske's Analysis

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages

    One of the principal thesis that the author, Fred Dretske, wants to represent in his work is “to think of knowledge as an evidential state in which all relevant alternatives (to what is known) are eliminated”. Dretske in his work has developed an analysis of knowledge critiquing Unger’s argument about “skepticism”, which is a trend and philosophical doctrine that believes that truth does not exist or that the human being is unable to know if it exists. For that, he tries to understand and explain knowledge through the Contrasting Set (CS) where are “the situations that are eliminated by what is known”; and the Relevancy Set (RS) where are “the possible alternatives that a person must exclude”. Having explained this, let’s pay attention to the premises of the central argument:…

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Edmond Gettier is considered to be one of, if not the most important philosopher of 20th Century philosophy. Gettier's argument against the traditional account of knowledge, aka "The Gettier Problem", is knowledge defined as justified true belief. The idea of justified true belief declares that in order for a given proposition to be true, one must believe more than the relevant true proposition, but also to have justification for doing so. Gettier argues that the traditional conditions for knowledge in the JTB (justified true belief) model are not sufficient. In other words, in some cases, meeting the 3 conditions, which are truth, belief and justification, are not enough to count something as knowledge. Gettier cases are counter-examples to the JTB model and they work against the account of knowledge. In order to validate his argument and challenge, Gettier refuted the original definition of knowledge while also sparking pronounced epistemological energy and innovation.…

    • 574 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Although distinctions similar to Kant’s a priori–a posteriori distinction and his synthetic–analytic distinction have been made by thinkers such as Hume and Leibniz, Kant is the first to apply two such distinctions to generate a third category for knowledge. Hume, for instance, does not distinguish between what Kant calls the analytic and the a priori and what he calls the synthetic and the a posteriori, so that, for Hume, all synthetic judgments are necessarily a posteriori. Since only a priori truths have the important qualities of being universal and necessary, all general truths about reality—as opposed to particular observations about unconnected events—must be a priori. If our a priori knowledge is limited to definitional analytic judgments, then Hume is right in concluding that rationally justified knowledge of universal and necessary truths is impossible. Kant’s coup comes in determining that synthetic judgments can also be a priori. He shows that mathematics and scientific principles are neither analytic nor a posteriori, and he provides an explanation for the category of the synthetic a priori by arguing that our mental faculties shape our…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    But why is a ___________ true belief more valuable than a __________ true belief? Traditionally, philosophers have been pretty satisfied with the tripartite theory of knowledge. The three conditions set out above are individually necessary, and jointly sufficient, for knowledge claims. Now, this tripartite theory of knowledge is precisely the target of Edmund Gettier’s 1963 paper “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”…

    • 602 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Most philosophers think that you cannot know that something is true without believing it is true. If you do not believe that a fish cannot breathe out of water, then you do not know it. Believing is a requirement of knowing. That said, how justified must our beliefs be to constitute knowledge? How valuable is this knowledge in which we believe in? I suppose in our society today, the value of knowledge at most times is dependent on the justifications that we give it.…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays