This essay Is justified true belief knowledge? has a total of 610 words and 3 pages.
Is justified true belief knowledge?
Gettier uses two examples of different philosophers on their analysis of knowledge and one that many have used. The purpose of Gettier is to prove the wrongness of these statements of what knowledge is. These 3 examples (two of them are stated by Ayer and Chisholm) basically portrait the scenario of justified belief in different ways. These statements do not "constitute a sufficient condition for the truth of the preposition" meaning they do not support the truth of the given preposition. Gettier asks himself if it's possible for someone to be justified in believing a false preposition. One of the forms he presented was (and I'm quoting here)
(a) S knows that P IFF (i.e., if and only if)
(i) P is true
(ii) S believes that P, and
(iii) S is justified in believing that P
Gettier then presents two cases on which he uses to prove (a) is wrong and does not meet the necessary conditions to support a true preposition. These cases also prove that the other first 2 statements presented at the beginning (b) and (c) are also wrong when it comes to "state a sufficient condition for someone's knowing a given proposition". Gettier purpose was to prove these 3 statements wrong but not to give the right one. He finishes the essay with an open idea. He does not give the "solution" to the problem presented in his essay and restated in the conclusion. So, Is Justified Belief knowledge? Can someone believe in something that is not true and still consider that as knowledge? Do we base our knowledge in the level of truth they have or the simple content that we happen to "know"? Can knowledge be wrong?
The purpose of Gettier on writing this essay was to make people think. Question themselves over and over about something so simple yet complex as knowledge. He did not give an "answer" or a statement that does give sufficient conditions for a truthful preposition perhaps because he didn't have it himself. He left us this analysis so everyone can question their own knowledge. Is Knowledge based in our believes? If it is, are all the gods religions believe in real? Can someone believe in something that is false but with the given preposition remaining truthful because is true to the person? We can base some knowledge on facts. Facts that have proof and can backed up in ay argument or debate. In some cases, the truth can be questioned because it doesn't necessarily connect with knowledge. So, Is true knowledge only acceptable when is true? What if we re not a hundred percent sure about it? An assumption perhaps, is that still knowledge? In everyday of our lives we state that we have knowledge, that we know things we are completely sure are true. Are they really true? Are we mixing what we want to be true with the actual truth and then calling it the truthful? What about "the absolute truth"? is there such a thing like that? Truth can change with environments and settings. Life circumstances or different societies can have an effect on what truth is for two different people. What about theories? We consider theories as knowledge, but if we are not completely sure they're truthful then, is it really knowledge? This essay certainly rises a lot of questions and this was its purpose. Make every reader question their knowledge and what it really is. Perhaps this is why it was the only thing he wrote, he only needed to question knowledge itself. All the things everybody "knows", including himself.
Topics Related to Is justified true belief knowledge?