How do I tackle a 15 mark equation?!

Identify the key words in the question Decide which of the central 3 themes/questions it is dealing with WRITE Write a plan allocating your paragraphs: DEFINE any terms ARGUMENTS in favour (+weaknesses) ARGUMENTS against (+weaknesses) CONCLUDE Decide how the question links into the key positions

Identify the key words in the question WRITE Write a plan allocating your paragraphs DEFINE any terms ARGUMENTS in favour (+weaknesses) ARGUMENTS against (+weaknesses) CONCLUDE Decide how the question links into the key positions What is the difference between true belief and knowledge?[15] Decide which of the central 3 themes/questions it is dealing with This relates to JTB – Gettier – responses What is the definition of knowledge? The question asks for the missing component – could be Justification – but then Gettier examples could prompt a discussion of alternatives Para 1 : Plato’s answer to the question. Example of JTB in action – racist juror Para 2 : necessity and sufficiency & the insufficiency of JTB – introduce 12 o’clock clock example Para 3 : Explain Gettier example and why it is a problem Para 4 : offer ‘no false lemmas’ as an alternative, and eaplain weaknesses Para 5 : offer ‘tracking the truth’ as an extra component, with example Para 6 : conclusion – return to the questions and summarise the difference (J and ttt)

What is the difference between true belief and knowledge?[15] Plato considered the question of what knowledge is, in his dialogue the Theaetetus. He concluded that the difference between true and belief and knowledge was justification. This is often called the tripartite definition of knowledge – Justified True Belief (JTB). The example of the racist juror illustrates this : if a juror believes that a man committed a crime, and he happens to be right, that not is NOT enough to be knowledge. The man might just be racist. Justification is needed for it to qualify as knowledge. Plato claims JTB is necessary and sufficient for knowledge – but there are certain classic examples which seem to show that it is not sufficient for knowledge. Gettier proposed a number of these. One such example considers someone who comes into a new town at midday and sees a clock on the wall reading 12 o’clock, and concludes that it is midday as a result. But, unknown to him the clock was broken, and just happened (coincidentally).# Gettier examples show that JTB is insufficient for knowledge – there may be justification, but the cause of the knowledge may be accidental. The problems caused by these and similar examples have prompted philosophers to add extra criteria to the definition of knowledge. One attempt to provide such a criterion is to require beliefs to be based on ‘no false lemmas’: this means that any justification must be scrutinised, and if there are any false beliefs in the chain or reasoning required then knowledge if not attained. In the example above, the belief that the clock is working is just such a false lemma. This explains why the belief is not knowledge. The main problem with this criterion is that it is too demanding – how can anyone scrutinise all the chains in their reasoning, and ensure that none are false? This would exclude many beliefs that we think are knowledge A more convincing criterion is to require that beliefs track the truth : this means that the our means of acquiring them must be reliable, and the beliefs must change is the facts change. This would not be the case in the example above – if he had arrived an hour later he would still have thought that it was midday. This explains why the belief is not knowledge In conclusion, the main difference between true belief and knowledge is the existence of justification. This justification must be a reliable means of acquiring the knowledge – it must track the truth.