Justified true belief

[Anonymous No.15942373]

Is justified true belief knowledge, /lit/? If not, why not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem#Knowledge_as_justified_true_belief_(JTB)

[Anonymous No.15942499]

>>15942373
Maybe read and understand what you're linking before you ask a question you should already know how to answer?

[Anonymous No.15942512]

>>15942499
this nigga dumb, that I know

[Anonymous No.15942524]

>>15942373
My whole approach is to invert this proposition. Is unjustified false belief ignorance? It certainly seems so. I do think it's much more nuanced than that and while proof by contradiction is not strictly satisfactory outside of mathematics, it points the way toward the truth.

[Anonymous No.15942533]

>>15942512
Imbecile, the Gettier problem shows that the classical definition is too wide. Nobody who understands the Gettier problem will dispute this.

[Anonymous No.15942549]

>>15942524
>My whole approach is to invert this proposition. Is unjustified false belief ignorance? It certainly seems so. I do think it's much more nuanced than that and while proof by contradiction is not strictly satisfactory outside of mathematics, it points the way toward the truth.
wew lad, just wew

[Anonymous No.15942568]

>>15942524
The negation of a conjunction is a disjunction of negations, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15942576]

>>15942373
Knowledge = true beliefs caused by a reliable process

[Anonymous No.15942578]

The Gettier problems are really stupid. I remember learning about them in high school and seeing through them straight away. But for some reason they are taken seriously in academic philosophy, which means either I’m a genius (unlikely) or academic philosophy is a joke.

The problem is that all of Gettier’s “counter-examples” rely on the person using false premises/assumptions to get to his conclusion, which obviously isn’t a proper justification.
For example, his “Smith and Jones” one, where Smith and Jones compete for a job, and the director of the company tells Smith that Jones will get the job, from which Smith forms the belief “Jones will get the job”, and, since he counted the coins in Jones’ pocket and found ten, he comes to believe the proposition “The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.” But then, it turns out that Smith got the job, not Jones, and Smith, though he didn’t know it before, also coincidentally has ten coins in his pocket. So according to Gettier Smith had a justified true belief and yet it wasn’t knowledge because it was based on luck.
This is stupid because Smith came to his conclusion by using false assumptions, ie. that Jones would get the job, so obviously his belief was not justified. It is like saying “I looked at my broken clock and saw that the time was 9. It turns out the time WAS 9 actually, so I had a justified true belief.” But no, it wasn’t justified, because your belief was based on a false assumption, ie. that the clock was functional. This is how it is for all Gettier “problems”.

[Anonymous No.15942617]

>>15942578
>The Gettier problems are really stupid. I remember learning about them in high school and seeing through them straight away. But for some reason they are taken seriously in academic philosophy, which means either I’m a genius (unlikely) or academic philosophy is a joke.
or maybe you just don't fucking get it midwit

[Anonymous No.15942636]

Why yellow circle is not a part of a third large circle? Is it impossible to name it?

[Anonymous No.15942645]

>>15942373

No. Plato already destroyed this definition in the Theatetus. Analytics need to stop pretending they're above reading real philosophy because it's "outdated" (i.e., they're too stupid to follow the arguments) because the result is they are constantly (poorly) reinventing the wheel

[Anonymous No.15942661]

>>15942576

This is retarded. So if I install elon musk's neuralink and it feeds me all the right answers to everything I "know" everything?

[Anonymous No.15942677]

>>15942617
I literally refuted them in my post. Try read it nigger

[Anonymous No.15942692]

>>15942677
The assumption can be false and justifiable you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.15942707]

>>15942692
stfu moron you're wrong
>>15942578
>This is stupid because Smith came to his conclusion by using false assumptions
this is your mistake other moron, here, I'll spoonfeed you

fucking hell this dumbass board

[Anonymous No.15942711]

>>15942578
>either I’m a genius (unlikely) or academic philosophy is a joke.
You're a fucking retard.

>This is stupid because Smith came to his conclusion by using false assumptions, ie. that Jones would get the job, so obviously his belief was not justified.
Wrong. "Justified" in believing that P is true = it is rational to believe P and irrational to believe otherwise

Based on the information available to Smith, it is rational for Smith to believe that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket, and irrational for Smith to believe otherwise. That's just what it means to say that "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket" is a justified belief for Smith.

[Anonymous No.15942725]

>>15942617
This shit is why philosophy gets ridiculed so much. The average teenager could argumentatively rip this "problem" to pieces, like so many problems or "paradoxes" in philosophy. The Gettier problems described in this article are laughably stupid.

[Anonymous No.15942726]

>>15942707
People acquire knowledge relying on false assumptions all the time. Your condition is completely irrelevant, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15942734]

>>15942725
You have to be 18 to post here, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.15942753]

>>15942725

Here's something your reddit sized brain will understand.

Google "Dunning Kruger effect"

Thank me later

[Anonymous No.15942766]

>>15942726
>People acquire knowledge relying on false assumptions all the time
And the dudes from Gettier examples don't. How many times do I have to call you a retard before you reflect on your stupidity?

[Anonymous No.15942767]

>>15942549
Wew what?
>>15942568
Don't come at me with this mumbojumbo. Give a concrete demonstration of your rebuttal. Or continue to stand in mystification, it makes no difference to me.

[Anonymous No.15942806]

>>15942767
wew get some basic training in logic because that's embarrassing like you don't fucking realize, also that other anon clearly showed what you should google to learn what your dumbass mistake was, or do we have to draw you a venn diagram?

[Anonymous No.15942807]

>>15942767
You must be trolling.

[Anonymous No.15942808]

>>15942766
>And the dudes from Gettier examples don't.
Are you trolling right now? JTB purports to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. Adding "and no false assumptions" will do nothing to fix the problem and add a whole raft of new ones.

[Anonymous No.15942819]

>>15942711
>it is rational for Smith to believe that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket
No it is not. The whole reason he believes it is because he infers it from the belief that Jones will get the job, WHICH IS FALSE. Inferring something from a false premise is not satisfactory justification.
Let me give you an example. Let's say we were playing chess. I see a move which I believe to be checkmate, because I check all the possibilities and find that your king has no way to escape being attacked, and so I come to the belief 'After I make this move, the game will be over and I will have won.' But it turns out that I overlooked something and the move is indeed not checkmate! But after I make the move, you resign, so my belief 'After I make this move, the game will be over and I will have won' turns out to be true! Which means I have a justified true belief and yet not knowledge!
BUT AGAIN, my belief WAS NOT JUSTIFIED because I inferred it from the FALSE PREMISE 'this move is checkmate'.
Another example: I look at my clock and see 9, therefore I come to the belief 'it is 9 o clock.' The belief, by chance, turns out to be true, but my clock was broken and so it is only true by luck. Do I have a justified true belief? Absolutely not, because my justification rested on the false premise, 'this clock is accurate.'
This is how it is with all the Gettier problems, every single one of them. They are stupid.

[Anonymous No.15942842]

>>15942806
Slavish adherence to the strictures of logic is a the sign of a weak mind. You have still not refuted my argument on its own terms. An adult would understand that the rules of logic are only heuristic and have limited naturalistic validity

>>15942807
You must be stupid.

[Anonymous No.15942884]

>>15942819
>Which means I have a justified true belief and yet not knowledge!
No, it doesn't. The information available to you was insufficient to justify your prediction that the game was about to be over. As you admitted, you overlooked a possibility. That possibility was fully available to you in the information you had, but you overlooked it. So it was NOT rational for you to conclude that the game would be over after the next move. You had a true belief that was not justified, hence no knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15942913]

>>15942884
And Smith didn't overlook a rational possibility when the boss told him that Jones would get the job but he didn't? Lmao

[Anonymous No.15942944]

>>15942913
No, he did not. If your boss tells you "we just hired Jones" it is reasonable to conclude that Jones got the job. Exercising reason in the empirical world is a matter of probability, not mathematical certainty. If Smith had grounds for thinking his boss was lying or delusional, that would be another story. But in the scenario at issue, he didn't.

[Anonymous No.15942946]

>>15942884
Perhaps it's easier for you to think about it this way. Smith's belief is not simply 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket'. That is just an arbitrary cut-off point used by Gettier to aid his sophistry. Smith's actual belief has some hidden layers to it, and it would be more properly formatted thusly: 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket, because Jones has ten coins in his pocket, and Jones will get the job.' Now we see this is not a true belief, since everything after the last comma is false. Again, this same logic applies to all Gettier problems. I am not a genius but I solved it the first time I saw it as a 17-year-old. It's not hard.

[Anonymous No.15942952]

>>15942808
>JTB purports to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. Adding "and no false assumptions" will do nothing to fix the problem and add a whole raft of new ones.
I don't call for removing false assumptions, I deny that are there in the first place (there's only fallible justification).

[Anonymous No.15942976]

Truth does not exist in the physical world, and only exists with respect to more primitive and necessarily unjustifiable truths. In logic and mathematics, there is no such thing as a "poorly justified true belief" as all truths are justified by definition.

[Anonymous No.15942996]

Is unjustified false belief a good definition of ignorance? Yes or no. Stop hiding behind autistic logical inference rules and answer the question with a proper argumentative form.

[Anonymous No.15943004]

>>15942946
"Jones will get the job" is a justified true belief whereas "This is checkmate" is not.

>>15942952
>there's only fallible justification
Outside mathematical proof, all justification is fallible. The point is that justification is not sufficient to turn true belief into knowledge. What Gettier shows is that you have to move beyond "adherence to proper reasoning" into the external world of reliable causal processes in order to generate knowledge. Smith's reasoning was impeccable -- he didn't overlook anything or fuck up -- yet he still failed to achieve knowledge because of factors external to the agent.

[Anonymous No.15943013]

>>15942996
Yes AND no!

[Anonymous No.15943016]

>>15943004
Jones will get the job is not a true belief, you fucking retard. It is the false belief which Smith uses to come to his conclusion that 'the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.'

[Anonymous No.15943020]

>>15942976
>all truths are justified by definition
False. Students give invalid proofs for true mathematical theorems all the time.

[Anonymous No.15943021]

>>15942842
>Slavish adherence to the strictures of logic is a the sign of a weak mind. You have still not refuted my argument on its own terms. An adult would understand that the rules of logic are only heuristic and have limited naturalistic validity
you used these words like you used "proof by contradiction", with a weak pretense of understanding what the fuck you're talking about

[Anonymous No.15943033]

>>15943016
Typo. I meant justified belief. "Jones will get the job" is a justified belief whereas "This is checkmate" is not. That's the difference.

[Anonymous No.15943034]

If I go to a friend expecting that we will chat, but the friend is not home, was my expectation of the chat justified?
If I go to a friend expecting that we will chat, but Earth is destroyed by a meteor, was my expectation of the chat justified?

[Anonymous No.15943050]

>>15942996
I would say no? Ignorance is unjustified belief regardless of whether it is true or false.

For example, I might believe that if I go swimming at the beach I'll drown. My reasoning might be that I'll be attacked by 100 sharks, whereas in reality I'll drown because I don't know how to swim. Isn't this a kind of ignorance, even though my belief (that I will drown) is true?

[Anonymous No.15943054]

>>15943033
Read my post again. I was not in any way defending my previous example about chess, but rather trying to format the Smith and Jones example in a more transparent way so Gettier's sophistry is more evident.

[Anonymous No.15943058]

>>15943034
Depends on how often your friend is home in such circumstances.

[Anonymous No.15943061]

>>15943020
But the justification still exists, just not by that particular student.

[Anonymous No.15943076]

>>15943061
Beliefs are always held by a specific believer. If the student's belief in a mathematical proposition is based on a faulty proof, he doesn't actually know that proposition.

[Anonymous No.15943084]

>>15943058
Let's say that friend is often out, but in this case I just didn't think about it. But when we meet we always chat, so when I took only that in account, my expectation of a chat was pretty justified.

[Anonymous No.15943089]

>>15943004
>Outside mathematical proof, all justification is fallible. The point is that justification is not sufficient to turn true belief into knowledge. What Gettier shows is that you have to move beyond "adherence to proper reasoning" into the external world of reliable causal processes in order to generate knowledge. Smith's reasoning was impeccable -- he didn't overlook anything or fuck up -- yet he still failed to achieve knowledge because of factors external to the agent.
Some of it is correct, some wrong, some confused.
The point is that if you give me an example of fallible justification (and yes, you correctly get that justification, however we define it in detail, must be fallible) than I will always be able to give you a JTB that is only true due to epistemic luck and therefore cannot be knowledge. This is what the Gettier problem is about.

[Anonymous No.15943093]

>>15942944
The boss didn't tell Smith that Jones got the job (in the past), he told him that Jones would get the job (in the future). I can't help you if you are unable to see the difference between these two cases. Even in a bizarre scenario where the boss had sworn on his life that Jones would get the job (in order to rule out the possibility of Smith rationally taking into consideration that he could be lying), the argument is still complete nonsense because Smith never solely believes that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket, he thinks that Jones will get the job.

[Anonymous No.15943094]

>>15943054
The point is that "justification" (and rationality) is always defined internally, relative to the information available to the agent.

[Anonymous No.15943109]

>>15943093
If you think there's a fundamental difference between the two utterances, you're not getting it.

[Anonymous No.15943116]

>>15943094
My point is that Smith did not hold a justified true belief. His belief, if fully laid out, is this: 'Because Jones, who has ten coins in his pocket, will get the job, the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.' This is simply not a true belief, so the "counter-example" doesn't present a challenge to JTB.

[Anonymous No.15943119]

>>15943109
The difference between the two utterances only exposes the arbitrariness of your criterion of rationality. Regardless, you're refusing to address the main issue. Smith always believes that the man who has ten coins in his pocket is exactly Jones and that Jones will get the job.

[Anonymous No.15943141]

>>15943116
If you are justified in believing a set of propositions, then you are justified in believing the reasoned consequences of those propositions. The justification is preserved through rational inference. The proposition "Jones will get the job" is not even the first proposition in the chain of inference.

[Anonymous No.15943151]

>>15942373
"Truth" can't be a necessary condition of knowledge, since many or even most things that people know are not personally verifiable. I know OP is a virgin, but I haven't seen him not having sex for the entire 14 years he's been alive. Imagine actually thinking you can invent new meanings for existing words and have people actually follow what the fuck you're trying to say. The term for a justified true belief is not "knowledge," it's "justified true belief."

>>15942524
>unjustified false belief
The opposite of a JTB would be an unjustified false disbelief.

[Anonymous No.15943157]

Any "justification" is necessarily some logical system, whose axioms are unjustifiable. Thus there is no such thing as a truly "justified" belief. Thus there is no such thing as knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15943160]

>>15943119
>The difference between the two utterances only exposes the arbitrariness of your criterion of rationality.
Not really. The boss didn't even need to say anything. He could have just whistled, and you have observed that he has always whistled when he is about to hire the last candidate he talked to. As long as the information available to you is robust enough to justify odds north of 50%, it's a reasonable bet.

[Anonymous No.15943179]

>>15943119
>Smith always believes that the man who has ten coins in his pocket is exactly Jones and that Jones will get the job.
You're confusing propositional belief and belief as an imaginary model of reality. Gettier's problem is always about propositional knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15943184]

>>15943141
You can say he was justified if you want, it doesn't change my argument. Smith's belief does not start and end with the single proposition "The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.' Rather, there are many hidden layers and assumptions underpinning this belief. When we lay out his belief in full, therefore, we have to lay out these assumptions too. When we do that, we find his belief is false, and therefore doesn't pass JTB.

[Anonymous No.15943190]

>>15943179
>>15943184

[Anonymous No.15943230]

>>15943184
>When we do that, we find his belief is false
Again, you are begging the question. If you already know what is true and false, why would you need to reason or justify your beliefs in the first place? Justification is a process that generates new beliefs from old beliefs using methods that have been established as truth-preserving in general. For example, modus ponens or mathematical induction in mathematics, and (more fallibly) observation and probabilistic induction in empirical endeavors. We wouldn't need these tools if we had pre-existing access to all the truths and falsehoods already. This is why it makes no sense to go beyond the information available to the agent when determining whether his inferences are justified.

[Anonymous No.15943239]

>>15943160
Smith believes at all times that he will not get the job, that the man who has ten coins in his pocket is Jones and that Jones will get the job.

To think that "Jones will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket" rationally translates into "the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job" is ludicrous because Smith believes that the man with ten coins in his pocket is Jones and nobody else. The possibility of Smith taking into account that he might be the man with ten coins in his pocket who is going to get the job is ruled out in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15943268]

>>15942767
He means you should have wrote unjustified and/or false beliefs are ignorance, not simply joint unjustified-false beliefs are. Although ignorance is not even the right word really, an absence of knowledge does not even always have to be a belief in the first place.


>>15943151
>Imagine actually thinking you can invent new meanings for existing words and have people actually follow what the fuck you're trying to say.
>By the way beliefs can be false and still count at knowledge, that's my totally normal definition.
Bait?

[Anonymous No.15943326]

>>15943239
>that the man who has ten coins in his pocket
That's not correct, as it implies uniqueness. The belief is that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. The set {'Jones has ten coins in his pocket', 'Jones will get the job'} logically entails the proposition 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket'. So if the former two propositions are justified, the latter must be too.

[Anonymous No.15943328]

>>15943239
In other words, the whole problem rests on the assumption that you can magically divorce Jones from the man with ten coins in his pocket. You can't, Smith identifies the two at all times.

[Anonymous No.15943335]

proof analytics are retards

[Anonymous No.15943366]

>>15943328
>>15943179

[Anonymous No.15943399]

>>15943268
>Know something
>It turns out it wasn't actually true
>Heh heh, guess you didn't really know it after all, kid
What knowledge do you have that you personally have verified to the absolute fullest extent? By the JTB measure, you can't know anything about science because it might turn out things don't work out quite the way we thought, can't know anything about math because maybe you made a mistake and didn't notice it even though you checked it 15 times, can't know basically anything about anything. Using the JTB definition, all knowledge is potentially merely a belief, and therefore the category of knowledge becomes meaningless.

[Anonymous No.15943426]

>>15943399
>What knowledge do you have that you personally have verified to the absolute fullest extent? By the JTB measure, you can't know anything about science because it might turn out things don't work out quite the way we thought, can't know anything about math because maybe you made a mistake and didn't notice it even though you checked it 15 times, can't know basically anything about anything. Using the JTB definition, all knowledge is potentially merely a belief, and therefore the category of knowledge becomes meaningless.
knowing and metaknowing be different bitches nigga

[Anonymous No.15943443]

>>15943399
Maybe if you stopped making so many mathematical errors you would finally attain some knowledge, fagboy.

[Anonymous No.15943474]

>>15943443
Maybe I'm just more likely to catch and be aware of my mathematical errors than your are.

[Anonymous No.15943492]

>>15943326
It doesn't matter, Smith never separates Jones from the man who has ten coins in his pocket. If you told him that he is logically obliged to accept the proposition "the man who has ten coins in his pocket will get the job" he would reject it nonetheless because it doesn't reflect his actual thought process and opens up the possibility of someone else getting the job. For Smith Jones is the man with ten coins in his pocket who will get the job.

[Anonymous No.15943508]

>>15943399
>>Know something
>>It turns out it wasn't actually true
>>Heh heh, guess you didn't really know it after all, kid
Yeah

>all knowledge is potentially merely a belief, and therefore the category of knowledge becomes meaningless
And you think the null set is also useless or?

[Anonymous No.15943518]

>>15943474
Nah, you're a mathematical loser. I can tell just by the way you type.

[Anonymous No.15943551]

>>15943443
>fagboy
Return to reddit.

[Anonymous No.15943626]

>>15943230
>>15943326
>>15943179
It is propositional knowledge, Gettier just didn't state the full proposition because he is a sophist. Smith's belief (let's call it P) that 'the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket' is contingent entirely upon the (false) belief that Jones will get the job. Therefore it makes no sense to take P as a standalone proposition and act as if that is the extent of Smith's belief. Smith's belief, stated in full, with its hidden premises, is: 'Because Jones, who has ten coins in his pocket, will get the job, the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.' This belief is simply a false one, since Jones will not get the job. Even if I grant that it is justified, all you have is a justified but untrue belief.

[Anonymous No.15943631]

>>15943551
Hit a nerve, eh faggot? You gonna cry?

[Anonymous No.15943641]

>>15943508
It's cool if you want to have JTB as a category, with the understanding that nothing (or maybe just almost nothing) can actually go into it, but by applying the world "knowledge" to it, you're inventing a new meaning for an existing word. Using definitions of commonly used words that are incompatible with any lay definition of those words is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.15943694]

>*anticipates the Gettier problem and refutes common objections against it 800 years before Gettier*

nothing personal mleccha

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sriharsa/

[Anonymous No.15943708]

>>15943626
The proposition is "The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket". It is a true justified belief, so why isn't it knowledge?

[Anonymous No.15944497]

>>15942578
moron

[Anonymous No.15944550]

>>15943694
Very impressive. The Mist example is exactly a Gettier case. We should call them Śrīharṣa cases now.

[Anonymous No.15944556]

>>15944550
don't samefag, guenonfag

[Anonymous No.15944565]

>>15944556
Not samefag. What does Śrīharṣa have to do with Guenon?

[Anonymous No.15944589]

>>15944565
i love them both

[Anonymous No.15944651]

>>15943694
There are Medieval European examples of Gettier problems too but analytics will argue that they are actually not because they are not presented rigorously enough or whatever. They will not accept any criticism of their "philosophers be gushin bout JTB for millenia until our boy Gettier btfo of em" narrative

[Anonymous No.15944694]

>>15944651
That's a load of bullshit. The real answer is that they were not aware of Śrīharṣa's work on the subject in 1963. Lakṣaṇamālā wasn't translated into English until decades later.

[Anonymous No.15944699]

>>15942373
>wikipedia

[Anonymous No.15945005]

>>15942533

The person who bleats out an "imbecile" in defense loses his argument, because to do so means not primarily that he is psychologically defensive (which is true), but that he literally does not philosophically understand whereof he speaks. the invocation of "imbecile" is 100% accurate on this head.

A likewise rule can be put in armed struggle. If there are two sides, and one side makes use of molotov cocktails while the other does not, the side using molotov cocktails is always the morally incorrect one.

[Anonymous No.15945017]

>>15945005
In your dreams, imbecile.

[Anonymous No.15945030]

>>15945017
schizo

[Anonymous No.15945035]

>>15945005
Stfu imbecile

[Anonymous No.15945038]

>>15945030
You just lost the argument according the the anti-schizo rule that I just made up.

[Anonymous No.15945056]

>>15945017
>>15945035

Pegged two objectively incorrect losers. The point about "imbecile" is that it's a go-to for people who are both wrong and trying to sound smart at the same time. You were pre-empted.

[Anonymous No.15945069]

>>15945017
You are gay and a faggot

[Anonymous No.15945071]

>>15945056
Whoever calls his adversaries "incorrect losers" first automatically loses the argument. It's basically equivalent to forfeiting.

[Anonymous No.15945127]

>>15942373
Simple resolution: the justifications offered in the examples are, in fact, inadequate as justifications because they lead to mistaken conclusions in absence of the coincidences which occur in the examples.

[Anonymous No.15945244]

>>15942373
OP everyone here is too thick to figure it out. Gettier problems are real, but the real debate is internalism vs externalism. For externalists, gettier problems aren't problematic. IMO internalists can't really "know" anything (e.g. can't know we have hands if one can't eliminate the possibility that one is a brain in vat). Alternatively you could let the fly out of the bottle and just become a pragmatist with regards to justification (pragmatist theory of truth is fucking stupid).

[Anonymous No.15945250]

>>15945127
It wouldn't be a mistaken conclusion because beliefs are true you fuckwit. learn2contradiction

[Anonymous No.15945255]

>>15945071

No, I got the other thing first, no quitsies, no reversies, no logical fallacies (you just repeated my thing and you can't repeat-sies at this phase of argument). la-la-la-la-la, I win.

[Anonymous No.15945270]

More seriously: imagine being Gettier and knowing that you've actually something worth a damn in philosophy at this late stage.

[Anonymous No.15945325]

>>15942578
The solution you're proposing is called "No False Lemmas" and it was the very first thing people suggested. You basically add a fourth condition:

S knows that p iff
1) p is true;
2) S believes that p;
3) S is justified in believing that p
4) S’s belief that p is not inferred from any falsehood

Unfortunately it doesn't work in general.

>But no, it wasn’t justified, because your belief was based on a false assumption, ie. that the clock was functional. This is how it is for all Gettier “problems”.
No, that's not how it is for all Gettier cases. There are cases that involve no such inference. For example:

>Suppose that James, who is relaxing on a bench in a park, observes an apparent dog in a nearby field. So he believes (d) "There is a dog in the field." Suppose further that the putative dog is actually a robot dog so perfect that it could not be distinguished from an actual dog by vision alone. James does not know that such robot dogs exist; a Japanese toy manufacturer has only recently developed them, and what James sees is a prototype that is used for testing the public’s response. Given these assumptions, (d) is of course false. But suppose further that just a few feet away from the robot dog, there is a real dog, concealed from James’s view. Given this further assumption, James’s belief in (d) is true. And since this belief is based on ordinary perceptual processes, most epistemologists will agree that it is justified. But as in Gettier’s cases, James’s belief appears to be true only as a matter of luck, in a way inconsistent with knowledge. So once again, what we have before us is a justified true belief that isn’t knowledge... nor it is inferred from any falsehood.

So even if you add the condition that proposition not be inferred from a false assumption, you still don't get knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15945351]

>>15942524
Everything that is false belief or false disbelief is ignorance, some true belief or true disbelief can be true by accident but still come from a place of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15945708]

>>15945005
>The person who bleats out an "imbecile" in defense loses his argument, because he literally does not philosophically understand whereof he speaks.
but that's fucking wrong you imbecile

[Anonymous No.15945718]

>>15943694
>>15944550
The intuition that knowledge cannot be acquired by accident is trivial and does not constitute a Gettier case, it's just used by Gettier in the last step of his argument. Coping shitskins are so pathetic.

[Anonymous No.15945728]

>>15945325
>The solution you're proposing is called "No False Lemmas"
you're giving him way too much credit, his argument is more stupid then that, but you framed it like this to protect your mind from his stupidity

[Anonymous No.15945959]

Plato refuted justified true belief in the very same dialogue where the idea originates in.

[Anonymous No.15946004]

>>15942373
>>15942645
>>15945959
/thread
Fuck Gettier and anal lyrics intentional misrepresentations of the past.
Socrates: Then correct judgment also must be concerned with the differentness of what it is about?
Theaetetus: So it seems, anyway.
Socrates: Then what more might this 'adding an account to correct judgment' be? If, on the one hand, it means that we must make another judgment about the way in which a thing differs from the rest of things, we are being required to do something very absurd.
Theaetetus: How's that?
Socrates: Because we already have a correct judgment about the way a thing differs from other things; and we are then directed to add a correct judgment about the way it differs from other things. At that rate, the way a roller goes round or a pestle or anything else proverbial would be nothing compared with such directions; they might be more justly called a matter of 'the blind leading the blind'. To tell us to add what we already have, in order to come to know what we are judging about, bears a generous resemblance to the behavior of a man benighted.
Theaetetus: Whereas, if on the other hand, ...? What else were you going to suggest when you started this inquiry just now?
Socrates: Well, if 'adding an account' means that we are required to know the differentness, not merely judge it, this most splendid of our accounts of knowledge turns out to be a very amusing affair. For getting to know of course is acquiring knowledge, isn't it?
Theaetetus: Yes.
Socrates: So, it seems, the answer to the question 'What is knowledge?' will be 'Correct judgment accompanied by knowledge of the differentness' - for this is what we are asked to understand by the 'addition of an account.'
Theaetetus: Apparently so.
Socrates: And it is surely just silly to tell us, when we are trying to discover what knowledge is, that it is correct judgment accompanied by knowledge, whether of differentness or of anything else? And so, Theaetetus, knowledge is neither perception nor true judgment, nor an account added to true judgment.
Plato's Theaetetus, 209d-210b

[Anonymous No.15946041]

>>15942645
>>15945959
>>15946004
He rejected true belief not justified true belief in Theaetetus, dumbfucks. He literally proposed the JTB account. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.15946112]

>>15946041
No you have to learn to read, he proposed it then refutes it. I know it's difficult in modernity to hold and contemplate an idea you disagree with. Plato shows that JTB leads to an infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.15946207]

>>15946041
>>15946112
>>15942373

[Anonymous No.15946804]

Holy fuck I know we mock an*lytics here but are they really this stupid? Their entire confusion stems from imposing a rationalist propositional framework of truth on reality without justification.

[jesus No.15946891]

>>15942373
knowledge is direct perception
/Thread