The Concept Of Knowledge As Justified True Belief Is Accepted Without Too Much Debate

In this paper, I’ll state, explain and evaluate Ruth Barcan Marcus’s argument in section 4 of her article “A Proposed Solution to a Puzzle about Belief”.

The purpose of this study is to determine the combined relationship between connected knowing (CK), separate knowing (SK), and epistemological beliefs with student’s academic performance. These variables look at understanding how students acquire knowledge and their attitudes towards thinking and learning. As mentioned in the study done by Schommer-Aikins and Easter (2006) this study would provide future benefit to how students are being taught along with how to manage their time while studying. In addition, this study could result in students acquiring better study habits earlier on, data collected from Wood and Kardash (2003) study showed that there was a large difference between the level of education in the participants and their level of epistemic cognition, which means that if students were to increase their level of epistemological thinking earlier on in their college career through workshops or seminars that taught them this way of thinking, theoretically student’s study habits and learning habits would improve significantly throughout their time in college.

This weeks reading from the Beliefs lecture written by Doris Werkman, she states; "Education is valued in every culture, but valued differently. It is so important here it is a law we must attend school until we are 16 and higher education is relatively inexpensive so that almost anyone is able to attend college (regardless of what you believe at this point of just paying your tuition -- it is not very expensive compared to some other cultures)" This link will provide you with countries that have actual low/ no cost for higher education. http://www.scholars4dev.com/4031/list-of-european-countries-with-tuition-freelow-tuition-universities-colleges/ I believe this statement may be true for the majority of WHITE people that school is "inxpensive"

With this particular case, Gettier effectively challenges the relationship between the sufficient condition and the necessary conditions because Smith’s justified true beliefs are not jointly sufficient for him to know he is the man with 10 coins in his pocket who will get the job. In fact, even if Smith’s justified true belief turns out to be true; Jones actually gets the job, intuitively we are not convinced that his justified true beliefs is deemed as knowledge because in the case that he is correct, we intuitively regard his justified true belief as a lucky coincidence since he could have had a false justified true belief.

People read from an abundant number of sources and retain the information presented. However, if people forgot the source of the information, would they be justified in the knowledge they have gained? Having a justification for knowledge is a necessary condition to have epistemic justification. According Earl Conee and Richard Feldman epistemic justification could be gained through internalism. Internalism should be understood as a person’s beliefs that are justified only by ideas that are internal to oneself.

In Plato’s Theaetetus, the dialog between Socrates and his student, Theaetetus, sets up the argument that knowledge is true belief that is adequately justified. Although there are many examples that prove Plato’s suggestion, people such as Edmund Gettier have questioned and disproved the notion of knowledge as justified true belief. In response to Gettier’s findings, many have tried to modify or find an alternative to the Justified True Belief model in search for the true definition of knowledge. In this paper, I will outline and discuss Plato’s Justified True Belief argument, outline and discuss Gettier’s response to Plato’s argument, and lastly, present and analyze four solutions to the Gettier problems.

First, I will introduce The Knowledge Argument and then further elaborate it by explaining its premises and conclusion. Second, I will present one I considered the strongest objection against the argument. Finally, I will explain why the knowledge argument succeeds and how the objection against it fails. The Knowledge Argument, proposed by Frank Jackson, is an argument against Physicalism (the thesis that everything is physical). The core idea of KA is that physical facts cannot give rise to facts about subjective experience, namely qualia.

The TBJ analysis identifies three conditions that are necessary and supposedly jointly sufficient for some person x to know some proposition P. Truth indicates that the proposition P has to be true. The truth needs to correspond to some true fact that relates to the world, such as that the Earth is round. It is necessary because a proposition P can only be deduced by factual evidence shown to x. However, truth by itself is not sufficient because truth itself is just a random fact. In addition, the person, x, needs to hold some sort of belief in their proposition P. If you do not believe in a proposition P, then it cannot be known, since you will not have any grounds on which to base your knowledge of that P. It is a necessary condition since “you can only know what you believe”. However, it is not a sufficient condition by itself because a belief is just x’s opinion of a subject. Finally, the person, x’s belief has to be accompanied by observations from their senses, prior knowledge, or deductive reasoning, which in effect, explains what the justification is. This may come from what people may see with their eyes, or forming a conclusion from previously assumed premises. Justification is a necessary condition because the allegedly known beliefs have to be adequately justified. Fallibility of justification is assumed since no justification can

In the report “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” by Edmund L. Gettier, he explains his arguments against a common analysis used to define ways in which knowledge is obtain by individuals. Gettier argues against the theory called “Justified True Belief,” in which an opinion must be supported by a justified true belief in order to be correct. Gettier’s essay on “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” successfully establish his objections by clearly explaining why true belief does not always acquire knowledge for individuals, the support gain from other important figures for his objection, and the clarity given in his explanation against the knowledge system.

The Gettier Problem is a widely acknowledged philosophical question, named in honour of Edmund Gettier who discovered it in 1963, which questions whether a piece of information that someone believes for invalid reasons, but by mere happenstance is correct, counts as knowledge. Before the Gettier paper was published, it was widely believed that the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge- which states that Justified True Belief equaled knowledge- was fact. This means that with three conditions, one could know something. Firstly, if you believe something, secondly, if you have justification for believing, and thirdly, that your belief is in fact true. If all three of these conditions were met, then this amounted to knowledge. However, with the publication of Gettier’s paper, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, he attempted to prove, with the aid of a number of problems, that it was not sufficient to have only these three conditions in order for a belief to become knowledge.

In his 1963 article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Edmund Gettier pointed out the fault in the traditional definition of knowledge and presented two counterexamples. The problem created by the two counterexamples is called the Gettier problem. In detail, the Gettier problem is whether a true belief based on invalid reasons counts as knowledge. My own Gettier counterexample is as follows. One day, my dad and I went to Costco Gas Station and there were already a lot of cars waiting for gasoline filling. So we queued in the last. When we were the next one to use the pump, there were two cars using the pumps, with one in the front and the other following it. My dad then asked me, of the two cars in front of us, which one would leave first.

The main issue addressed in this exposition is if “reliabilism is true, could we ever know whether we know anything? (If not, how big a problem would that be?)” According to the following evidence that will be presented, it is suggested that there is no way of knowing whether we know anything, when using the reliabilist form of justification as a way to reach truth. To begin, reliabilism is a form of justification where we do not need to account for the exact sources our beliefs come from because it “is externalist in character” (Handout 10). Moreover, a belief is justified if it was formed by an unconditionally reliable process, or by a conditionally reliable process that receives input from other conditional reliable processes that are

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Alvin Goldman's paper "A Causal Theory of Knowing" does not solve the problem in Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" To argue the old view of knowledge, Gettier presents a case in which a Subject (S) is justified in believing that a proposition (P) and P entails another proposition (Q). S deduces Q from P and accepts Q. Then S is justified in believing Q. In the first Case that Gettier presents however, P is falsely justified, but Q is a true justified belief: Smith (S) is justified in believing that Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket (P). Thus, the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket (Q). S is justified in

The controversy within the field and study of Philosophy is continuously progressing. Many ideas are prepared, and challenged by other philosophers causing the original idea to be analyzed more thoroughly. One of the cases that challenge many philosophers is The Problem of Induction. David Hume introduced the world to The Problem of Induction. The Problem of Induction claims that, past experiences can lead to future experiences. In this essay, I will explain how the problem of induction does not lead to reasonable solutions instead it causes philosophers more problems.

or that death is not the end. There is no way to prove that this is