Explain The Justified True Belief Definition Of Knowledge
Explain The Justified True Belief Definition Of Knowledge Briefly Des
Explain the Justified-true-belief definition of knowledge, briefly describe Gettier's challenge to it, and make up your own Gettier case. (essay; max. 1000 words) REFERENCES: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
The concept of knowledge has been a foundational topic in philosophy, especially within epistemology, which seeks to understand the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge. Among the many proposed theories, the "Justified True Belief" (JTB) account has historically been influential. This essay aims to briefly describe the JTB definition of knowledge, explore Edmund Gettier's significant challenge to it, and develop an original Gettier-style case to illustrate the problem.
The Justified True Belief (JTB) Definition of Knowledge
The JTB account posits that in order for a person to 'know' a proposition P, three conditions must be met simultaneously: the belief in P must be true, the person must believe in P, and the belief must be justified by appropriate evidence or reasons. Formally, knowledge is traditionally described as "S believes P, P is true, and S is justified in believing P" (Plato, as interpreted by contemporary epistemologists).
This definition emphasizes the importance of justification, which distinguishes between mere true belief and knowledge. For example, if someone happens to believe that it is raining because they see dark clouds, and it indeed rains, they do not necessarily 'know' it is raining if their belief was unfounded or unjustified (e.g., they guessed). The justification component ensures that knowledge is not based purely on luck but on a rational connection between the belief and reality.
Gettier's Challenge to the JTB Account
In 1963, philosopher Edmund Gettier challenged the sufficiency of the JTB definition through a series of counterexamples, now famously known as "Gettier cases." These cases demonstrate situations where all three conditions of JTB are satisfied, yet the individual does not genuinely possess knowledge due to a coincidence or luck involved.
Gettier's challenge revealed that the JTB account could be "fooled" by false assumptions or unintended truths, making it inadequate as a complete definition of knowledge. For example, a person might have a justified, true belief about a situation, but the truth of that belief could result from an accidental or coincidental connection rather than genuine understanding.
A classic Gettier case involves Smith and Jones, where Smith is justified in believing that "Jones will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his pocket." Based on this, Smith forms the belief: "The man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job." Unexpectedly, Jones does not get the job, but by coincidence, Smith is also holding a true belief that "The man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job," because Smith himself is secretly holding a different candidate's application, which also contains ten coins in his pocket. Despite fulfilling belief, truth, and justification criteria, Smith does not truly 'know' the proposition, as his belief is based on a false premise.
An Original Gettier Case
Imagine a researcher, Laura, who has a justified belief that her colleague, Dr. Patel, has published a groundbreaking paper, based on her review of his recent manuscript and her conversations with him. Unbeknownst to her, Dr. Patel’s paper was destroyed in a computer malfunction, but a second, recently uploaded and identical version of the paper is published online without her knowledge. Therefore, Laura's belief—that Dr. Patel has a published paper—is actually true, and she is justified in believing it because of her review notes and conversations.
However, Laura’s belief ultimately hinges on a misjudgment; her justification was for a different version of the paper that no longer exists, and her belief is true purely by coincidence. She is justified and believes the proposition, and it is true, but her belief does not qualify as knowledge because her justification was based on an inaccurate premise. This scenario exemplifies a Gettier-style problem because the truth of her belief is accidental, not a result of genuine understanding.
Conclusion
The JTB definition of knowledge provided a foundational framework but was undermined by Gettier's challenge, which illustrated that justified true belief is insufficient for knowledge. The core issue lies in the fact that luck or coincidence can produce beliefs that are justified and true yet lack the epistemic depth required for genuine knowledge. The development of new theories—such as the addition of relevant safety or defeasibility conditions—aims to address these shortcomings, reflecting ongoing efforts to refine our understanding of epistemic justification.
References
- Gettier, E. L. (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121-123.
- Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction. Oxford University Press.
- Philosophical Studies, 175(1), 45-67.
- Audi, R. (1993). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Routledge.
- Knowledge and Reflective Belief. Clarendon Press.
- Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.
- Epistemology: The Classical Readings. Rowman & Littlefield.
- Theory of Knowledge. Prentice Hall.
- Evidentialism. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(2), 81-95.