• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How might we combat the Gettier Problem? In giving your answer set forth two of your own Gettier - Style counter examples

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How might we combat the Gettier Problem? In giving your answer set forth two of your own Gettier - Style counter examples. Philosophers in the West at least since Socrates and Plato in the 4th century BCE have investigated the nature of knowledge. Since then, all of the great philosophers of the Western tradition have had a great deal to say about knowledge. However it was only until the nineteenth century that a separate sub-discipline called "theory of knowledge" or "epistemology" emerged. One such definition of knowledge was offered by Plato in his book Theaetetus. This is known as the tripartite definition. Edmund Gettier (1963)? sets out to challenge this tripartite definition of knowledge which defines the logical argument of having knowledge as the following: 'S knows that p' as: 1. p is true. 2. S believes that p. 3. S's belief that p is justified. In accordance with the definition all the conditions must be met and to have knowledge one must have a true and justified belief of something. Chisholm has held that the above definition, and further states that they are necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. However Gettier using his own examples (henceforth known as counter - examples) shows that all the above three conditions can be satisfied and yet 'S' does not know 'P' and thus does not have knowledge. ...read more.

Middle

To put the above into the logic argument we can see simply the tripartite definition falls short in its attempt to define knowledge. 'S knows that p' as: 1. p is true. 2. S believes that p. 3. S's belief that p is justified. If we firstly put example one into the formula, John knows that the key in his pocket will open the lock to his home 1. It is true that the key in Johns pocket will open the lock, 2. John believes that the key will open the lock to his door 3. John's belief that the key will open the door is justified. Therefore according to the tripartite definition he should have knowledge; however even though all the conditions are met he still does not have knowledge as it is not true that the key in his pocket will open the door to his home. The same applies to the second example given; The executive know that his secretary is in her office, 1. The secretary is in her office 2. The executive beliefs that the secretary is her office 3. The executive's belief that the sectary is in the office is justified However it cannot be said that the executive has the correct knowledge and once again the tripartite definition has been found not to be sufficient to define knowledge as in both the necessary conditions have been met yet it seems there are not enough sufficient conditions to define knowledge. ...read more.

Conclusion

So it is now a case of either accepting the second or third option. And it would seem from a philosophical point of view we would have to reject the third option given. As this states that there is no definition of knowledge and that in fact there is no need for a definition of knowledge. However it seems to accept option three would be a defeatist attitude and to simply say that we have been going years without the definition and that there is no need for it would be false. Because to accept that view is saying that one should accept the status quo and remain there and never progress and this is obviously not good philosophy. So in closing it can be said that the Gettier examples given are valid and that we should try and combat this problem by taking option two - which is to either remodel the tripartite definition and add / modify some of the conditions. Alternatively scrap the tripartite model and simply use it as a building block in order to form another definition, one that combats the Gettier problem and one that does in fact define knowledge adequately. ? 1. Gettier, Edmund L. Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? From Analysis 23 (1963): 121-123. Transcribed into hypertext by Andrew Chrucky, Sept. 13, 1997. (http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html) ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Discussing John Dewey.

    constantly in flux and truth is only relevant to the values and meanings that currently define it? Will the naturalistic metaphysics of experience change with history like values and meanings? Will it change the different experiences of each individual? If the door no longer closes, but did close before, it still closed previously.

  2. A Critical Analysis of Lao Tzu's Tao Teh Ching - Chineses philosophy.

    Tao is both how the world is and what it is.8 As TTC puts it: "The Tao is like an empty bowl, Which in being used can never be filled up. Fathomless, it seems to be the origin of all things.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work