1 / 10

Analyzing Gettier's Argument: The Flaws in the Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge

Gettier's argument challenges the Tripartite Analysis of knowledge, asserting that justified true belief alone does not equate to knowledge. The example of Smith and Jones illustrates how Smith holds a justified true belief about Jones's possession of coins, yet does not genuinely know this due to sheer luck. This leads to the Fallabilist reply, suggesting that knowledge does not require absolute certainty. This discussion explores the implications of Gettier's critique on our understanding of knowledge and justification in epistemology.

wray
Télécharger la présentation

Analyzing Gettier's Argument: The Flaws in the Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gettier’s argument

  2. The Tripartite Analysis: S knows that p iff S has a true justified belief that p.

  3. The Knowledge Thesis: In order to know something, you have to be certain (in the sense that you have to rule out all of the other alternatives). The Fallabilist Reply: Knowledge is justified true belief and justification does not require certainty, so knowledge doesn’t require certainty either.

  4. Smith and Jones are applying for a job with a company. Smith has just spoken to the president of the company and learned that Jones will get the job. Smith believes that Jones will get the job, and for good reason. Smith also believes that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. He just saw Jones empty his pocket looking for a quarter, and put ten coins back in the pocket. Smith has been watching him ever since and is sure he neither removed nor added any coins. Smith muses idly to himself, “Well, it looks like the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.”

  5. …suppose Smith gets the job (the company president changed his mind)… Furthermore, it turns out that Smith has ten coins in his pocket (something which Smith has no evidence about). Then “the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.” Yet it is ridiculous to say Smith know this; it is sheer luck that it is true. -William Poundstone

  6. Gettier’s Argument • Smith has a justified, true belief that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. • If (1), then, if the Tripartite Analysis is correct, Smith knows that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. • Smith doesn’t know that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. • The Tripartite Analysis isn’t correct.

  7. The Tripartite Analysis: S knows that p iff • p is true, • S believes that p; and • S’s belief that p is justified.

  8. The Four-Part Analysis: S knows that p iff • p is true, • S believes that p; • S’s belief that p is justified; and • ???

  9. First Proposal: S knows that p iff • p is true, • S believes that p; • S’s belief that p is justified; and • S is certain that p.

  10. Second Proposal: S knows that p iff • p is true, • S believes that p; • S’s belief that p is justified; and • S’s justification doesn’t include any false beliefs.

More Related