5 mark question feedback... JTB account is only a definition of propositional knowledge. Explain precisely what it is about the JTB account that Gettier is critiquing. You can use other examples of Gettier cases if Gettier’s own example (of Smith and Jones) is confusing. Smith and Jones example can be simplified. Remember to logically link your points back to the question – showing that you have a very clear idea about what the question is asking you to do. Proof read your answer to check for clarity. DO NOT evaluate in 2, 5 or 9 mark questions. Read through my comments on your work and fill in your tracking sheet with what you need to do to improve

Spot the 5 errors in this 9 mark introduction… Gettier, a philosopher born in 1927 in Maryland, criticised the Justified, True Belief deduction of knowledge. I will be explaining his argument and considering how successful it is as a critique of the tripartite theory of knowledge. Gettier argues that not all of the conditions for knowledge – justification, truth and belief – are necessary for knowledge. He illustrated his argument in what he called, ‘Gettier cases’.

Gettier’s argument poses a serious challenge to the tripartite definition of knowledge. Epistemologists who think that the JTB approach is basically on the right track must choose between two different strategies for solving the Gettier problem The first is to strengthen the justification condition to rule out Gettier cases as cases of justified belief. The other is to amend the JTB analysis with a suitable fourth condition, a condition that succeeds in preventing justified true belief from being “gettiered.” Thus amended, the JTB analysis becomes a JTB+X account of knowledge, where the ‘X’ stands for the needed fourth condition.

Strengthening the justification condition Infallibilism Key questions for today’s lesson: What is Infallibilism and how is it used as a response to Gettier? How does Descartes assume an Infallibilist approach in the Meditations?

Infallibilism: What is it and how is it a response to Gettier ? Read pp of the Hayward, Jones and Cardinal book and answer the questions below: 1) Define infallible. 2) Write down a definition of Infallibilism. 3) How is Infallibilism different to the argument that we must feel certain in our beliefs to have knowledge? Extension: what sorts of things can we not rationally doubt?

Which of the following beliefs cannot be rationally doubted? Discuss. (a) You believe that it will rain tomorrow. (b) You believe that 2+2=4 (c) You believe that one day dogs will start to speak. (d) You believe you currently are in pain. (e) You believe that you are reading a book. (f) You believe you know that you exist. (g) You believe you ate breakfast this morning. (h) You believe that it is possible to doubt things. (i) You believe the sun will rise tomorrow. (j) You believe that you are experiencing black ink coloured lettering sensations that seem to spell out words and sentences.

Discuss Have you ever been convinced you were awake, only to find you were dreaming? When you are dreaming, can you tell it is a dream at the time? Can you be 100% certain you are not dreaming now?

Descartes Descartes was assuming an Infallibilist approach to knowledge in the Meditations when trying to find a belief that could not be doubted. His plan was to doubt all of his beliefs, so that only those that cannot be rationally doubted would remain. He could then build up a system of knowledge where every belief was infallible. Descartes assumed an infallibilist approach to knowledge in the meditations – trying to find a belief that could not be doubted. 1)Read pp.xiii-xv of Cardinal, Hayward and Jones to establish how Descartes tried to build up a system of knowledge where every belief was infallible in his Meditations. Write down what he did. 2)Answer: How does Infallibilism respond to Gettier? Refer to Descartes in your answer. Extension: Would Descartes have agreed with you about the beliefs you thought could not be rationally doubted in the previous task?

How does Infallibilism respond to Gettier? Refer to Descartes in your answer. Discuss your answer with the person next to you and see if you can make it stronger. Be prepared to share your answer with the rest of the class.

Homework (due next lesson) (i) Read pp of the Cardinal text to find some strengths and weaknesses of Infallibilism. Create a table in your notes. (ii) To stretch yourself read pp of Lacewing for a further criticism of Infallibilism and add it to your above notes.

Is the Infallibilist response to Gettier persuasive? YesNo