Gettier Cases seem absurd and unconvincing?

Why gettier cases are misleading?

Gettier cases are cases of reference failure because the candidates for knowledge in these cases contain ambiguous designators. If this is correct, then we may simply be mistaking semantic facts for epistemic facts when we consider Gettier cases.

What is an example of a Gettier case?

Here’s another Gettier case: You have a justified belief that someone in your office owns a Ford. And as it happens it’s true that someone in your office owns a Ford. However, your evidence for your belief all concerns Nogot, who as it turns out owns no Ford.

What do the Gettier cases show?

Gettier presented two cases in which a true belief is inferred from a justified false belief. He observed that, intuitively, such beliefs cannot be knowledge; it is merely lucky that they are true. In honour of his contribution to the literature, cases like these have come to be known as “Gettier cases”.

Why is Gettier problem a challenge to epistemology?

Each Gettier case is a challenge to the sufficiency, for being knowledge, of a belief’s being true and well justified, such as by good evidence. Each Gettier case therefore includes a belief that is true and justified without being knowledge. At any rate, that is the usual epistemological interpretation of such cases.

Does gettier present cases of knowledge that are not cases of justified true belief?

On the face of it, Gettier cases do indeed show only that not all actual or possible justified true beliefs are knowledge — rather than that a belief’s being justified and true is never enough for its being knowledge.

What makes justification an important condition for knowledge?

To put it another way, the justification condition was meant to ensure that knowledge was based on solid evidence rather than on luck or misinformation, but Gettier-type examples seem to show that justified true belief can still involve luck and thus fall short of knowledge.

What was the gettier problem?

The Gettier problem, in the field of epistemology, is a landmark philosophical problem concerning the understanding of descriptive knowledge. Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier, Gettier-type counterexamples (called “Gettier-cases”) challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

What is the gettier problem for dummies?

A Gettier problem is any example that demonstrates that an individual can satisfy the classical analysis of knowledge – justified true belief – without possessing knowledge.

What is a gettier case quizlet?

Gettier’s Assumptions. 1) ‘it is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false‘ 2) ‘If S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, S is justified in believing Q. You just studied 9 terms! 1/9.

How do you solve the Gettier problem?

The second sense in which the Gettier problem might be solved involves developing a new theory or analysis of knowledge that is not subject to Gettier-type refutation. Not surprisingly, solutions of this second kind also frequently result in the generation of new, higher-level Gettier examples.

Does knowledge equal justified true belief yes or no why why not?

True belief is not sufficient for knowledge; since a belief can be true by accident or lucky guesswork, and knowledge cannot be a matter of luck or accident. 2. So knowledge requires justification—i.e., having sufficient reasons for one’s beliefs.

Related posts:

How to contextualise reading Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed? How does the philosophy of science explore original research formulation? What did Poincaré mean when he said “Mathematicians do not deal in objects, but in relations among objects”? Have I got Saussure’s distinction between the form and substance right? Thoughts about Feyerabend? Do you think morality and ethics are evolutionary or general disadvantages? Is there a term for prioritisation of values in ethics? What does Searle mean by “intentionality” and “causal processes”? Why did Scientists still follow Newton’s scientific framework, even though Kant debunked it? What are the differences between morals and ethics?