issues of the tripartite view

Question 1

are the JTB conditions individually necessary?

Answer 1

belief: can you have knowledge without belief?

necessary condition- s believes in p
incoherent- ‘ i know its raining but I don’t believe it’
some philosophers argue that belief isn’t a necessary condition- you can know something without believing it
dilen is taking a test yet doesn’t believe he remembers the material and guesses answers however his answers are correct. dilen had knowledge without belief as he wasn’t consciously aware of it. incompatibilism argues that belief and knowledge are incompatible- if you know something you don’t just believe it, people say ‘ i don’t just believe that you’re lying I know you’re lying’

truth-knowledge needs to be true. people have incorrect beliefs- many believed no one knew. no such thing as false knowledge only false belief.
ie. the earth is flat
we can’t be certain whether we have found truth ie god.

justification- difficult bc variables of what is ‘justification’? there is a spectrum of justification- difficulty is where to draw the line. most agree good justification is needed just not what it consist.

Question 2

gettier cases: 1
smith and jones
where an individual has a justified true belief that is not knowledge
justified belief is only true as a result of luck

Answer 2

GETTIER CASE 1
Smith and Jones are interviewing for the same job
Smith hears the interviewer say “I’m going to give Jones the job”
Smith also sees Jones count 10 coins from his pocket
Smith thus forms the belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
But Smith gets the job, not Jones
And, by coincidence, Smith also has 10 coins in his pocket

Question 3

explanation of gettier

Answer 3

Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is:

Justified: he hears the interviewer say Jones will get the job and he sees that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket
True: the man who gets the job (Smith) does indeed have 10 coins in his pocket
But despite being a justified true belief, we do not want to say that Smith’s belief counts as knowledge because it’s just luck that led to him being correct.

This shows that the tripartite definition of knowledge is not sufficient.

Question 4

gettier case: 2
relies on the logical principle of disjunction introduction:
if you have a true statement and add “or some other statement” then the full statement (i.e. “true statement or some other statement”) is also true.
ie: “London is the capital of England” is true. And the statement “either London is the capital of England or the moon is made of green cheese” is also true, because London is the capital of England.
the overall statement is true because the or means only one part has to be true.

Answer 4

Smith has a justified belief that “Jones owns a Ford”
So, using the principle of disjunctive introduction above, Smith can form the further justified belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona”
Smith thinks his belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is true because the first condition is true (i.e. that Jones owns a Ford)
But it turns out that Jones does not own a Ford
However, by sheer coincidence, Brown is in Barcelona

Question 5

explanation: gettier 2

Answer 5

Smith’s belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is:

True: “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” turns out to be true. But Smith thought it was true because of the first condition (Jones owns a Ford) whereas it turns out it is true because of the second condition (Brown is in Barcelona)
Justified: The original belief “Jones owns a Ford” is justified, and so disjunction introduction means that the second belief “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is also justified.
But despite being a justified true belief, it is wrong to say that Smith’s belief counts as knowledge, because it was just luck that led to him being correct.

This again shows that the tripartite definition of knowledge is not sufficient.