The tripartite view Flashcards
what is the tripartite definition of knowledge
true belief accompanied by a rational account
1. justification 2. truth 3. belief
necessary and sufficient conditions
JTB
- we argue that ‘justification, truth and belief’ are all necessary for knowledge
- and all together the three conditions for knowledge are sufficient for knowledge
defining ‘knowledge’ is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions.
show how truth is necessary for knowledge
JTB
If someone said, “I know that the moon is made of green cheese” you wouldn’t consider that knowledge because it isn’t true.
show how belief is necessary for knowledge
JTB
It just wouldn’t make sense, for example, to say “I know today is Monday but I don’t believe today is Monday.”
show how justification is necessary for knowledge
JTB
Suppose someone asks you if you know how many moons Pluto has. You have no interest in astronomy but just have a strong feeling about the number 5 because it’s your lucky number or whatever. You’d be right – Pluto does indeed have 5 moons – but it seems a bit of a stretch to say you knew Pluto has 5 moons. Your true belief “Pluto has 5 moons” is not properly justified and so would not count as knowledge.
what do Gettier’s scenarios aim to achive in relation to JTB
an individual has a justified true belief that is not knowledge. Both scenarios describe a belief that fails to count as knowledge because the justified belief is only true as a result of luck.
What is 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
- Then Smith looks in his pocket and, by coincidence, he also has 10 coins in his pocket
does smith have a JTB in case 1
belief- ‘the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket’
justified - he hears the boss 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 have 10 coins in his pocket
why would we say smith doesn’t have knowledge in gettier case 1
espite 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.
what does gettier case 1 prove
shows that the tripartite definition of knowledge is not suffiecient: you can have JTB that is NOT knowledge
what does gettier case 2 rely on
on the logical principle of disjunction introduction
what is the disjunction introduction
that if you have a true statement and add ‘some other statement’, then the full statement is also true
e.g “London is the capital of England” is true. And so 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. Even though the second part (“the moon is made of green cheese”) is false, the overall statement is true because the or means only one part has to be true (in this case “London is the capital of England”).
explain gettier’s second case
- 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
does smith have JTB in gettiers second case
belief- either jones owns a ford or brown is in barcelona
truth - 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.
what does gettier’s second case prove
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.
how do philosophers respond to the gettier cases to the tripartite definition
make new definitions
e.g 1. JTB+no false lemmas, reliablism, virtue epistemology, infallibilism,
what does no false lemmas say
It says that James has knowledge of P if:
- P is true
- James believes that P
- James’s belief is justified
- James did not infer that P from anything false
adds an extra condition to the tripartite definition. It says knowledge is justified true belief + that is not inferred from anything false (a false lemma).
how does no false lemmas defeat gettier case 1
avoids the problems of Gettier cases because Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is inferred from the false lemma “Jones will get the job”.
Remember:
The tripartite definition says Smith’s belief is knowledge, even though it isn’t
The no false lemmas response says Smith’s belief is not knowledge, which is correct.
So, in this instance, the no false lemmas definition appears to be a more accurate account of knowledge than the tripartite view: it avoids saying Gettier cases count as knowledge.
what is the problem facing no false lemmas
fake barn county
what is fake barn county
- in ‘fake barn county’, the locals create fake barns that look identical to real barns
- Henry is driving through fake barn county, but he doesn’t know the locals do this
- Henry often thinks “there’s a barn” when he looks at the fake barns
- These beliefs are not knowledge, because they are not true – the barns are fake
- However, on one occasion Henry looks at the one real barn and thinks “there’s a barn”
- This time the belief is true
- It’s also justified by his visual perception of the barn
- And it’s not inferred from anything false.
why is fake barn country an issue for no false lemmas
According to the no false lemmas definition, Henry’s belief is knowledge.
But this shows that the no false lemmas definition must be false. Henry’s belief is clearly not knowledge – he’s just lucky in this instance.
what is reliabilism
Reliabilism says James knows that P if:
- P is true
- James believes that P
- James’s belief that P is caused by a reliable method
what is a reliable method
one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs.
eg. if you have good eyesight, it’s likely that your eyesight would constitute a reliable method of forming true beliefs. If you have an accurate memory, it’s likely your memory would also be a reliable method for forming true beliefs.
what is an advantage of relaibilism
- it allows for young children and animals to have knowledge. Typically, we attribute knowledge to young children and animals. For example, that a baby knows when its mother is speaking.
- However, pretty much all the other definitions of knowledge considered imply that animals and young children can not have knowledge. For example a baby can’t justify its beliefs and so justified true belief rules out seagulls and young babies from having knowledge.
- Similarly, if virtue epistemology is the correct definition, it is hard to see how a seagull or a newly born baby could possess intellectual virtues of care about forming true beliefs and thus possess knowledge.
- but they can form beliefs through a relaible process