Goldmans Account Of Inferential Knowledge Essay

Goldman’s account of inferential knowledge is similar to the conservative accounts because both types of accounts try to remove false beliefs from the analysis of knowledge, to strengthen it. They both revolve around the problem presented by Gettier; the ability to use false beliefs in the traditional analysis of knowledge to make claims of knowledge. However, his account is unlike the conservative accounts because instead of adding to the third requirement or adding a fourth, Goldman intends to create a third requirement that uses the causal theory. His account of knowledge is; S knows that p if and only if the fact p is causally connected in an ‘appropriate’ way with S’s believing p. Goldman’s account of inferential knowledge is unlike the …show more content…
He focuses on facts of objects and then tries to create a causal connection between those facts. In the Gettier case however, there is no causal connection. This is different to how Lehrer would claim they solved Gettier’s problem; that there is a falsehood used as a condition dependent for knowing. Goldman rejects that there is any complete account of knowledge taking place in Gettier examples. He is able to avoid the Gettier problem by implementing a process that demonstrated how inferential knowledge is …show more content…
The inference of S is not warranted because the inference was accidental and does not genuinely confirm that the volcano erupted. There was a mistake because S’s perspective was wrong. This problem of dependence on falsehood is a similar one that conservative accounts of knowledge also face and continuously try to correct for by adding more restrictions about what would be considered a falsehood. Goldman does not try to categorize falsehoods but only tries to address that causal chains that rely on luck or wrong perspective are not efficient enough to be