In today’s society, knowledge is a key concept in an individual’s life that allows a person to convert raw information into something meaningful like words or concepts. Thus, the meaning behind knowledge can be determined if (1) P is true, (2) you are sure that P is true, and (3) you are given the right to be sure of P. On the contrary, philosopher Edmund Gettier argues that one cannot be certain of his or her knowledge on a specific fact or piece of information even if the known is said to be true and justified. For example, if a male student is the first one to finish an exam in his class a belief may be that he will get a good grade on his exam, and he was right. However, it would be false to say that he knew that if he finished the
…show more content…
However, when the dairyman went to go check up on Daisy as well, the dairyman noticed that Daisy was not behind the trees but behind some bushes in a hollow near the gate. In addition, the dairyman also spotted a large piece of black and white paper that was caught in a tree far away from where he was standing. Therefore, how can one ensure that Farmer Field saw Daisy and not just a piece of black and white sheet of paper? One can infer that Farmer Field would say that he knows what his prized cow looks like based on the color and/or pattern that distinguishes a cow from other animals; cows are black and white shaped. Also, one could infer that Farmer Field would have been able to tell the difference between Daisy and the piece of paper based on the movement, general shape, and/or location of where the piece of paper was caught in the tree. However, this statement is merely an assumption based on the lack of evidence provided from both the farmer and his dairyman. Despite these assumptions, Farmer Field could also state that one contradiction to the dairyman’s statement is that Daisy has the capability of moving on her own and could have moved from behind the trees to where the dairyman spotted her. For these reasons, Farmer Field believes that he has knowledge of seeing Daisy in the field despite what the dairyman …show more content…
In addition, Gettier could argue that Farmer Field does not have the right to say that he knows that he saw Daisy in the field because knowledge cannot contain conflicting arguments debating the truth behind a person’s knowledge. Therefore, the first conflicting argument is that the farmer and his dairyman claimed to have found Daisy in two different locations. The second argument is that Farmer Field could have mistaken the sheet of black and white paper for Daisy in the distance, and the third is that neither the farmer nor the dairyman gave any evidence to back up their statements. For example, some evidence that could have supported their claims were the distances between the farmer/dairyman and Daisy, and also making physical contact with Daisy to make sure that it was her. Thus, although Farmer Field has the right to say that Daisy is safe due to true beliefs, the farmer cannot make false claims by stating that he knows that Daisy is in the field because, like A. J. Ayer once stated: “[I]t is possible to be completely sure of something which is in fact true, but yet not to know it” (Ayer
However, when the dairyman went to go check up on Daisy as well, the dairyman noticed that Daisy was not behind the trees but behind some bushes in a hollow near the gate. In addition, the dairyman also spotted a large piece of black and white paper that was caught in a tree far away from where he was standing. Therefore, how can one ensure that Farmer Field saw Daisy and not just a piece of black and white sheet of paper? One can infer that Farmer Field would say that he knows what his prized cow looks like based on the color and/or pattern that distinguishes a cow from other animals; cows are black and white shaped. Also, one could infer that Farmer Field would have been able to tell the difference between Daisy and the piece of paper based on the movement, general shape, and/or location of where the piece of paper was caught in the tree. However, this statement is merely an assumption based on the lack of evidence provided from both the farmer and his dairyman. Despite these assumptions, Farmer Field could also state that one contradiction to the dairyman’s statement is that Daisy has the capability of moving on her own and could have moved from behind the trees to where the dairyman spotted her. For these reasons, Farmer Field believes that he has knowledge of seeing Daisy in the field despite what the dairyman …show more content…
In addition, Gettier could argue that Farmer Field does not have the right to say that he knows that he saw Daisy in the field because knowledge cannot contain conflicting arguments debating the truth behind a person’s knowledge. Therefore, the first conflicting argument is that the farmer and his dairyman claimed to have found Daisy in two different locations. The second argument is that Farmer Field could have mistaken the sheet of black and white paper for Daisy in the distance, and the third is that neither the farmer nor the dairyman gave any evidence to back up their statements. For example, some evidence that could have supported their claims were the distances between the farmer/dairyman and Daisy, and also making physical contact with Daisy to make sure that it was her. Thus, although Farmer Field has the right to say that Daisy is safe due to true beliefs, the farmer cannot make false claims by stating that he knows that Daisy is in the field because, like A. J. Ayer once stated: “[I]t is possible to be completely sure of something which is in fact true, but yet not to know it” (Ayer