Justification for the Truth

773 Words3 Pages
Gettier argues against the claim that, whenever something is true, and we are sure that it is true, and we are justified in being sure that it is true, we know it to be true. Reconstruct his argument (the argument proceeds by way of counter-example you will want to describe his counter-examples in detail). Does it work? If justified true sureness does not always amount to knowledge, what more is needed? What I need to be written in this essay is an answer to the last question and a conclusion. The answer to the question should include several examples in order to illustrate the arguments used. Gettier shows that we cannot always be justified in our claim that something is true. He shows this by taking any of the most accepted truth propositions that have been placed in logical form and refuting these. For instance, let's take Ayer's necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge that: S knows that P IFF: P is true, S is sure that P is true, and S has the right to be sure that P is true. A person can believe that P is true, and yet be mistaken. Secondly, Q may be a consequence of P; S, by accepting P, therefore accepts Q and so it is Q (as well as or in replacement of P) that S accepts. In other words, Gettier tells us that justified true sureness does not always amount to knowledge. The supplementary factor that may be needed is skepticism of one's accepted knowledge and going to the source, as far as possible, in order to verify. Let's elaborate on this
Open Document