Gettier Objections and Responses Flashcards
State the first Gettier example.
SMITH AND JONES.
- Smith is attending a job interview along with Jones.
- Smith overhears the boss saying that Jones will get the job, Smith justifiably believes that Jones will get the job and that he has 10 coins. These two statements provide justification for Smith’s conclusion.
- Smith reasons to the conclusion that ‘the man who will get the job has 10 coins’ - this conjunctive proposition is the supposed piece of knowledge.
- However, Smith gets the job and coincidentally, Smith also has 10 coins.
Explain this example.
- Smith’s belief is justified (he heard the boss say Jones would get the job) and true (smith was the man with 10 counts who got the job)
- However, Gettier suggests this is not actually knowledge as it was a case of lucky true belief and was down to coincidence. There is a lack of sufficiency.
- In Smith’s case he inferred his justified true belief from a false (justified) belief (that Jones would get the job).
- Gettier argued that knowledge should not reply on accident or coincidence. Smith’s inference is only accidentally true.
State the second Gettier example.
FORD AND BARCELONA
- Smith has a strong justification for the belief that Jones owns a ford car (e.g. he’s repeatedly spoken about owning a ford)
- Smith has another friend Brown
- Smith currently has no evidence of the specific whereabouts of Brown
- Smith constructs the following proposition; Either Jones owns a Ford (J) or Brown is in Barcelona (no evidence)
- This is a disjunctive statement (an either or statement)
Explain this example.
- belief is justified and he has strong evidence for the first part
- however, by a strange coincidence, Jones no longer owns a ford and Brown is actually is in Barcelona.
- this means the disjunctive statement is still true.
- as with the Smith and Jones example, this involves luck and so we wouldn’t want to call this knowledge.
What is infallibilism?
INFALLIBLY (cannot possibly contain error) JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF
P1: No one can know what is false
C1: Therefore, if I know that p, then I can’t be mistaken about p.
C2: Therefore, for justification (J) to secure knowledge, J must guarantee truth (so strong it cannot be doubted)
C3: Therefore, If I am justified in believing that p, I can’t possibly be mistaken.
C4: Therefore, if it possible that I am mistaken, then I can’t be justified in believing p.
C5: Therefore, infallibilism is true.
Give 3 problems with infallibilism
- Any occasion where the conclusion could be wrong is not infallible and therefore not knowledge. Then, what actually counts as knowledge becomes extremely narrow.
- Goes against our intuition: cannot gain knowledge from documents from teachers as they could be lying to us.
- Some infallibilists exclude belief from knowledge as it has the possibility for error (fallible). Knowledge = infallible truth.
What is no false lemmas?
- JTB + NFL
- Lemma = belief used to justify a claim
- states that belief cannot be used to demonstrate other beliefs unless they too count as knowledge (cannot be inferred from anything false)
- attempts to remove the possibility for incorrect assumptions (Smith may have heard incorrectly)
Give two problems with NFL.
- barn example does not involve inference. Whilst it doesn’t involve inference, it involves a lucky true belief and so adding an element to the definition of knowledge does not solve this issue
- it’s not always easy to know whether an assumption is false and therefore whether to discount it (extreme e.g. evil demon argument)
What is reliabilism?
- replaces justification (RTB) with a reliable method/cognitive process of generating the belief.
- A TRUE BELIEF GENERATED VIA A RELIABLE METHOD
- more pragmatic (doing things in a practical way to achieve the thing we want to achieve)
- A reliable cognitive process is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs meaning we are not looking for absolute certainty.
State positives of reliabilism.
- widens what we can count as knowledge as it’s not looking for absolute certainty
- young children (pre-rational) and animals can have knowledge which is discounted by IJTB and NFL.
^ Don’t have sophisticated rational psychology that provides justification. So there is no J in it’s definition.
State problems with reliabilism.
- Believe reliable methods and justifications are too different to interchange. J covers internal reasoning, RM may not. Highlights difference between reason and cause.
- Reasons: thought process (fear, desire)
-Causes: do not use thought process - some philosophers argue that reliabilism makes an error in thinking that RM and J are equivalent (MISUNDERSTANDING!! RM IS BETTER THATS WHY IT REPLACES J)
What is VTB?
- based on Aristotle’s views of virtues (skills)
- argues that if we focus on the person instead of the reliable method or the justification (agent focus) we will get closer to knowledge
- looking at the knower and how they know dispositionally or habitually is better than looking at a particular circumstance of method
- consider characteristics of a “true knower” (curious, reliable, confident, open-minded etc)
- an intellectual virtue is an intellectual skill, ability or trait that contributes to getting to know the truth
Give the “i know p if” of VTB:
I know p if
- p is true;
- you believe that p; and
- your true belief is a result of you exercising your intellectual virtues
What is the problem with VTB?
Some may argue that the definition wanders too far from what knowledge is.
What is AAA?
- Developed by Sosa
- Suppose an archer shoots an arrow at a target:
• Accuracy: did the arrow hit the target?
• Adroitness: was the arrow shot well?
• Aptness: did the arrow hit the target BECAUSE it was shot well?
A.K.A:
Knowledge is apt belief;
• Accuracy: is the belief true?
• Adroitness: is the way that the person formed the belief an exercise of their intellectual virtues?
• Aptness: is the belief true because the person used their intellectual virtues forming it?
