Presentation on theme: "Knowledge as JTB Someone S has knowledge of P IFF: 1. S believes P 2. S is justified in believing P 3. P is true."— Presentation transcript:
Knowledge as JTB Someone S has knowledge of P IFF: 1. S believes P 2. S is justified in believing P 3. P is true
JTB This definition of knowledge was formulated by Plato in Theaetetus. It remains the generally accepted definition of knowledge Edmund Gettier, however, challenges the adequacy of such a definition – it is known as the Gettier Problem
Justification One primary question: Does having justification for P entail that P is true? – Infalliblism: If S knows P, then S cannot be mistaken in believing P, thus Ss justification for believing P guarantees its truth. i.e. one cannot be justified in believing a false claim. – Falliblism: The infalliblist argument only works in the case where S cannot possibly be wrong about P. However, there is nothing to guarantee that S is right. Basically, its right to say that It is impossible for S to be wrong about P if he knows P. but it is not necessarily right to say that If S knows P, then it is impossible for him to be wrong about P.
Falliblism and its implications Falliblism suggests that truth and justification may or may not be connected in any situation. How then can we possibly connect Ss belief that P with the truth of P correctly? – Foundationalism – Coherentism – Reliablism
Foundationalism We justify one belief with another, which also requires support from others and so on and so forth. Foundationalism suggests that there is a termination to such a regression in a set of beliefs that are fundamentally and independently secure. These beliefs are either self-justifying, self-evident or indefeasible. However, it is difficult to see how these self-evident beliefs (mathematics and simple logical propositions) can lead to more complex, dependent beliefs. The latter does not seem to be deducible from the former. If it cannot be deduced, then it would have to be induced, but induction is in itself defeasible.
Reliabilism Reliable process of having a belief – Rational – Scientific – Mathematical – Logical Problems: – Externalism vs internalism debate: no knowledge of process, yet knowledge – The New Evil Demon
Coherentism Attempts to solve the regress problem – Foundationalisms answer – axioms! Descartes, Spinoza – Coherentism – regress means nothing – fundamental assumption is wrong! The criteria of coherence – System of beliefs should cohere – Use the same explanation for divergent statements – Use ONE explanation for similar statements
Case 1: Original case Two characters, Smith (Main) and John. Both sign-up for job and President of the Co. tells Smith that John got the job. Smith comes to the conclusion that whoever got the job had ten coins in the pocket. He has this belief because he counted the coins in Johns pocket. His belief is justified. (JB present)
But… Smith got the job instead, not knowing that he did had ten coins in his pocket as well. So his belief is true. (JTB criteria fulfilled.) But is it knowledge??? No, because he did not know who truly got the job.
Another example John sees a person who appears to be Jane dancing in room A. John then forms a belief that Jane is dancing. He can justify it because he has seen someone who looks like Jan dance. The belief is also true because Jane is indeed dancing.
But… However, despite it fulfilling JTB, there is an error in it because even though Jane is dancing, she is not dancing in room A. Instead she is dancing in room B and the person which John saw dancing in room A was Janes identical twin. His belief cannot be knowledge because he does not know the true location of Jane.
Solutions to this 1.Infallibility proposal 2.Eliminate Luck Proposal 3.No False Evidence Proposal
Infallibility proposal Explained that because we use our senses to justify, we make errors. Therefore the best way to prevent such a case is to not use any fallible evidence to justify a belief at all. This is however, unrealistic as in our real lives we rarely have infallible knowledge. A mistaken approach to the cases which dismisses almost all we know.
Eliminate Luck Proposal Luck is one of the main reasons for resulting in the Gettier Cases. So if it is eliminated or reduced then higher chance for the belief to be right. However, this method has been quite vague. However, based on my understanding, scientific research can be considered such a method; the control of variables and having a controlled environment.
No False Evidence Proposal In the Smith case, why he came to the JTB yet not knowledge was because he heard that Jones was going to get the job. So if that piece of information was taken away, he would not have come to that conclusion. So JTB should be modified such that for the belief to be knowledge, the justification has to be true.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.