Conditions and Analysis of Knowledge: Robert K. Shoppe Flashcards
Gettier’s examples of the coins in the pocket and Brown in Barcelona show that the traditional JTB analysis of knowledge is not correct. Explain how they do that.
Claim: The person getting hired has 10 coins in his pocket
This claim is justified. Smith was told that Jones is getting hired. Smith counted the coins in Jones’s pocket.
This claim is true. Smith is getting hired and he has 10 coins in his pocket.
Smith believes it.
Yet, clearly, Smith does not know the claim.
Claim: Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona.
This claim is justified. Smith knows that Jones has always owned a Ford and he is driving a Ford now. So, he has justification for the claim that Jones owns a Ford. This entails that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona.
The claim is true. It is true that Brown is in Barcelona.
Smith believes the claim.
Yet, clearly, Smith does not know the claim.
On p. 31, we are presented Keith Lehrer’s example of Mr. Nogot. How is this a counter-example to the JTB analysis of knowledge?
Claim: Someone in the office owns a Ford
Mr. Nogot has given misleading evidence to S, a person in the office, that he (Nogot) owns a Ford. So, S has justification for the claim that Nogot owns a Ford. From this, S deduces that someone in the office owns a Ford.
The claim is true. Someone (not Nogot) in the office does own a Ford.
S believes that someone in the office owns a Ford.
Yet, clearly, S doesn’t know the claim.
On p. 31, we are presented with the example of the barn facsimiles. How is this a counter-example to the JTB analysis of knowledge?
Claim: That (pointing at a real barn) is a barn.
This claim is justified. The barn really does look like a Barn.
It is true. It really is a barn.
S believes that the barn he is pointing at is a real barn.
Yet, it seems S doesn’t know that it is a barn.
On p. 32, we are presented with Gilbert Harman’s example of the newspaper. How is this a counter-example to the JTB analysis of knowledge?
Claim: A famous civil rights leader has been assassinated.
This claim is justified. The newspaper reports that a famous civil rights leader has been assassinated.
It is true. A famous civil rights leader has indeed been assassinated.
S believes it.
Yet, it seems as if S doesn’t know it. There is relevant but misleading evidence that suggests that the claim is false. So, S believes the claim only because she is not aware of the contrary evidence.
One way to fix the JTB analysis is to remove the justification requirement and replace it with a causation requirement. That is,
A subject S knows a claim P if and only if
A. P is true
B. S believes P
C. P being true is what caused S to believe P
How is it that on this analysis we get the correct result in the Mr. Nogot example? That is, how is it on this analysis, S doesn’t know that someone owns a Ford?
What caused S to believe that someone in the office owns a Ford?
S’s belief that Nogot owns a Ford… What caused that? The evidence presented to S that Nogot owns a Ford.
How is the Beloved Speck example (on p. 33) a potential problem for the causation analysis?
Claim: That is a boat bearing my approaching lover
What has caused S to believe this claim? It is true that that boat bears S’s approaching lover. But that is not the reason S believes it. It is caused by wishful thinking.
What is Peter Unger’s Nonaccidentality account (p.35) of knowledge?
S knows that P iff
P is justified
P is true
S believes P
S’s being right about P is non-accidental. S believes P for the right reasons.
How does the example of Tricky Mr. Nogot (p. 35) show that the Nonaccidentality account cannot be correct?
Trick Mr. Nogot purposely tricks people into believing truths. He knows that Havit owns a Ford. He presents misleading evidence that he owns a Ford. This causes S to believe that Nogot owns a Ford. S then forms the belief that someone owns a Ford.
Notice that there is no accidental belief. Mr. Nogot purposely presented misleading evidence.
What is Alvin Goldman’s Reliability Analysis of knowledge (p. 36)?
S knows that P if and only if
S has justification for P
P is true
S believes P
The mechanism that causes S to believe P is reliable.
How is the Reliability Analysis supposed to give us the correct result in the Mr. Nogot and the Tricky Mr. Nogot cases? The correct result is that S does not know that someone owns a Ford. How does the Reliability Analysis yield this result?
Claim: Someone owns a Ford.
Forming beliefs based on the evidence presented by Nogot is not reliable.
That is, even if the claim had been false, S would have still believed the claim.
What is one problem with the Reliability Analysis
Suppose there was an angel who would block the formation of S’s belief in the claim if it were false.
Then, S’s belief in the claim is reliable.
Yet, clearly, we would still not say that S knows the claim.
