The Gettier Problem: A Marathon Essay

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

| The study of knowledge: What constitutes knowledge, the nature of knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible

Edmund Gettier’s argument that justified true belief is not a sufficient definition for knowledge is correct. There are many scenarios in which the conditions for justified true belief are met but cannot be said to qualify as knowledge; therefore justified true belief is not a sufficient definition for knowledge.

Philosophy is one of the most important subjects taught today. Philosophy can teach us things as broad as secrets of the universe and as personal as knowing right from wrong. In the following paragraphs, I will explain each concept, as well as its importance to myself.

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.

Erika and Legend are best friends. They both do cross country. Legend and Erika have about the same pace. Erika and Legend are doing their hill workout on an extremely steep hill. The steep hill has grass on one side and dirt on the other side. The grass is wet from all the rain we have had this past week. Their doing their hill workout because they have a meet on Saturday. The meet is going to be wet and grassy with numerous hills. There is going to be twenty teams attending this meet to compete.They both plan to place in the top five. Then,Erika finds out she has cancer. So that means she can’t run. She still goes to the meet to cheer on her team while they run. The girls finished their race. Legend placed second overall. While

In this counterexample of the traditional view of knowledge that Gettier illustrates, a true justified belief evolved from a false justified belief. What the Gettier problem shows us is that in order for a true belief to qualify as knowledge, it must satisfy two conditions; it must not be a lucky guess (that is, it must be justified), and it must not be a lucky truth. A true belief that isn't a lucky guess, it may still be a lucky truth, and thus fall short of being knowledge. So where must knowledge come from?

Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the science,

Plato argued that true knowledge was not obtained through the knowledge of the physical world around us, but from these unchanging ideas. Plato’s theory of knowledge is well explained through his discussion of the Divided Line; a line divided into two unequal parts. One section represents the visible order and the other intelligible order, relating to opinion and knowledge, respectively. The stages of cognition flow upwards: imagining, belief, thinking, and intelligence. The visible, changing world of opinion begins with the awareness of images through perception. Awareness of images can include

A perpetual conflict emanating throughout all mankind questions the significance of knowledge to human nature, regarding knowledge’s definition, acquisition, branches, and value. Major role models in the foundation of philosophy - specifically, in this essay, Plato and Aristotle - obsess over the significance of knowledge and its importance to and relationship with the development of human beings and their mindsets. Although Plato’s view on knowledge describes the internal predisposed essence of all Forms and the need for a superior being to extract them from the student, Aristotle’s outlook resides as more reliable and realistic due to his beliefs in the premise of knowledge in the sensation and perception, with continuing development in memory, experience, art and science, and, ultimately, true wisdom.

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.

In “The Value of Philosophy”, Bertrand Russell— “an important social critic and one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century”—refutes the idea of philosophy being pointless and a waste of time (The Value of Philosophy). Although philosophers have not agreed on one exact definition for this branch of knowledge, philosophy is generally understood as an “academic discipline” which aims to cover a variety of topics through arguing, inquiring, assuming, and “testing arguments for weakness” in order to gain knowledge and grasp a better sense of life (Lectures 1-2, Package). Russell makes strong arguments for philosophy being beneficial, especially when one is open to seeking a deeper understanding of life and why the universe operates the way that it does. Despite philosophy’s inability to definitively answer the questions that it seeks to understand, in Russell’s opinion, it holds a great amount of value—one of those values being uncertainty.

Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty

This essay is reflection about my understanding from what I have learned during this class about what philosophy is. Philosophy is a broad topic and can be hard to understand. What we learn is class about philosophy defiantly makes me think and makes my brain turn all the time, but so far, my understanding is that philosophy is the study of knowledge. It breaks down what everything is. Examples used in class are chariness, deskness, and the main one sued in class “cupness”.

Knowledge can be defined as information gained through sense perception, emotion, language and reason, while it is defined by Plato as “justified true belief.” The claim that knowledge takes the form of a combination of stories and facts is however not accurate in history and biology. First, it brings up the questions of what are stories and what are facts. Stories are accounts of past events from somebody’s perspective, while a fact is the truth. When looking at the two areas of knowledge, they each favour one side of the combination over the other. For example, knowledge from history mostly takes the form of stories, while knowledge from biology mostly takes the form of facts. This distinction between the different types of knowledge leads to the knowledge questions of “How do we obtain knowledge in the different areas of knowing?” and “To what extend is knowledge in certain areas of knowledge subjective or objective?”