“Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” (The Gettier Problem) Background
Epistemology: A theory of _____________
What do we mean when we claim to know something? What kinds of conditions must be satisfied in order for a claim to become knowledge? Note: we are interested in __________________ knowledge here (S knows that p), not knowledge of how to do things (e.g., knowing how to ride a bike) The tripartite theory of knowledge – knowledge as justified true belief (JTB) The truth condition
We can’t know something that is false. We may think that we know, but it would simply be a mistake. The belief condition
If we claim to know that p, we must believe that p. We cannot “know” something and yet do not “believe” in it. (Even though we can still believe in a claim that we don’t know about…) In other words, believing is a _____________ condition for knowing, while knowing is a ______________ condition for believing. The Justification condition
Simply holding a true belief is not enough; we must also be able to give support to our belief. Example of a true belief that we don’t consider knowledge: 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?” Recall the pragmatic purpose of an argument: to persuade your audience of a proposition that they don’t already believe. Gettier’s argument serves this purpose by challenging a commonly accepted notion of knowledge (knowledge as JTB) First, Gettier lays out two assumptions of his argument
Justification is ____________________One can be justified in believing something that is in fact ___________________. One is justified in believing a proposition that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document