The beliefs of Smith are based on false premises — BlueBanana
I don't really know what you mean by it was interpreted in some other way. What other way is there to interpret the proposition "Someone I know owns a Ford"? — Chany
However, the entire point is to show that the definition leads us to accept conclusions that, for all intents and purposes, are false. — Chany
I think I can show why you could not accept b as knowledge under JTB. — Chany
It also seems absurd to claim that one cannot be justified by false beliefs. If Smith fakes their vehicle registration for a Ford, pays people to vouch for him about owning a Ford, picks me up in a Ford that he does not own, and shows me pictures on social media of him driving around in said Ford, then I am, by any normal means of the word, justified in believing Smith owns a Ford. The claims are all false- Smith fabricated everything- but I am justified in believing Smith owns a Ford. From the proposition "Smith owns a Ford," I can derive the proposition "Someone I know owns a Ford." The justification from the first transfers over to the other. — Chany
Smith believed that "Jones will get the job" which turned out to be false and not "the person who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket" which turned out to be true, so it doesn't debunk the JTB theory. — Abaoaqu
knowledge is in itself a true belief — Abaoaqu
how can we know that the belief is indeed true? We have to rely on some sort of proof, a justification — Abaoaqu
If we consider the first case for example, the meaning of "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket" changes if the person "the man who will get the job" refers to. This is what Lukasz Lozanski used in an article I found to solve the Gettier problem. — BlueBanana
That should be done by coming to those conclusions from the definition alone. Taking one's own conclusion as a premise doesn't prove anything. — BlueBanana
I know all this to be true, but for either JTB-definition to be shown true or Gettier to be shown correct it should be proven that b is not knowledge, not only under JTB. — BlueBanana
But where is the line drawn? Are logical fallacies enough justification? Is any amount of evidence enough or is proof required? This is all further evidence against JTB. How can knowledge be defined as a justified true belief when the word justified itself is so unclear? — BlueBanana
I disagree with the claim that JTB is not what we need for knowledge, because one can make a lucky guess and be right. — LD Saunders
What you are claiming is that the "knowledge" of a lottery ticket winner in "knowing" he held the winning ticket I equivalent to the knowledge a physicist ha regarding why a bridge will stay in place. — LD Saunders
Except if we claim Gettier was incorrect and Smith does know that the person who gets the job has ten coins in their pocket. — BlueBanana
What is adequate justification? — BlueBanana
What you are claiming is that the "knowledge" of a lottery ticket winner in "knowing" he held the winning ticket I equivalent to the knowledge a physicist ha regarding why a bridge will stay in place. I strongly disagree with that position. — LD Saunders
First of all knowledge doesn't need to be true for multiple reasons, for example the existence of the words "false knowledge" — BlueBanana
I agree, it isn't enough, they also have to be true, which should be verified with some sort of proof.Belief, on the other hand, isn't enough to make something knowledge. — BlueBanana
Edmund Gettier made the following two assumptions:
1) b is a justified, true belief (JTB-definition of knowledge)
2) b is not knowledge
And therefore, JTB theory is false.
However, this is circular reasoning. Nowhere did Gettier actually prove that b is not knowledge. Gettier's own examples are evidence of knowledge being justified true beliefs. — BlueBanana
Incidentally this whole method of doing philosophy I find unhelpful. Arguments of this sort produce vast and endless debates about the "ordinary" meaning of words. Empirical methods are better suited to figuring out whether there is such a thing as the "ordinary" meaning of "knowledge". — PossibleAaran
Umm... I really don't understand what you mean, how is that an exception? — Abaoaqu
"False knowledge" is a misuse of the word knowledge. That is what you call a false belief. — Abaoaqu
He thinks you will agree with him that it would be odd to use the word "knowledge" to describe those cases. — PossibleAaran
Once you claim that knowledge need not be true, aren't you then claiming that all claims are the equivalent of one another? — LD Saunders
If it's false, how could it possibly be knowledge? — LD Saunders
Are you suggesting that there's an alternative approach to the problem, or that the problem isn't really a problem at all? — Michael
That's Gettier problems in a nutshell... — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.