Is having a justified, true belief that p sufficient for knowing that p?
Knowledge was traditionally defined by Plato as Justified True Belief, also known as the Tripartite theory of knowledge. This theory states that in order to know something, your belief of something must be both justified and true. Without these three conditions satisfied, knowledge cannot be obtained. These components together, arguably, give us the three necessary and sufficient ingredients for knowledge. The theory can be presented in the following way:
S (subject) knows P (proposition) if…
P is TRUE;
S BELIEVES that P
S is JUSTIFIED in believing that P.
However, some, such as Gettier, have contested that such a theory is sufficient for knowledge. Others reject the notion of knowledge altogether. Whilst I agree that these three conditions are wholly and inarguably necessary for knowledge I agree with others in that JTB alone is not sufficient for knowledge.
Justified True Belief was a concept intended to be the equivalent of knowledge. Plato described the truth condition as necessary for knowledge, claiming you can’t know something that is false. Most epistemologists agreed that it was a reasonable condition, that what is false cannot be known (Ichikawa, J. J, 2001) It would sound silly to say, for example, I know that the dessert is hot but it isn’t true. Furthermore, it …show more content…
The no false lemmas account argues that for a belief to be justified, the process of reasoning used to discover it cannot contain or be subjected to any false grounds. Gettier 's Smith example, therefore, would be rejected as knowledge, as Smith falsely believed that Jones would get the job, and that led to his belief that the person with 10 coins in their pocket would get the job. According to No false lemmas, Smith wouldn’t have knowledge as his conclusion is deduced from a belief which is
Knowledge was traditionally defined by Plato as Justified True Belief, also known as the Tripartite theory of knowledge. This theory states that in order to know something, your belief of something must be both justified and true. Without these three conditions satisfied, knowledge cannot be obtained. These components together, arguably, give us the three necessary and sufficient ingredients for knowledge. The theory can be presented in the following way:
S (subject) knows P (proposition) if…
P is TRUE;
S BELIEVES that P
S is JUSTIFIED in believing that P.
However, some, such as Gettier, have contested that such a theory is sufficient for knowledge. Others reject the notion of knowledge altogether. Whilst I agree that these three conditions are wholly and inarguably necessary for knowledge I agree with others in that JTB alone is not sufficient for knowledge.
Justified True Belief was a concept intended to be the equivalent of knowledge. Plato described the truth condition as necessary for knowledge, claiming you can’t know something that is false. Most epistemologists agreed that it was a reasonable condition, that what is false cannot be known (Ichikawa, J. J, 2001) It would sound silly to say, for example, I know that the dessert is hot but it isn’t true. Furthermore, it …show more content…
The no false lemmas account argues that for a belief to be justified, the process of reasoning used to discover it cannot contain or be subjected to any false grounds. Gettier 's Smith example, therefore, would be rejected as knowledge, as Smith falsely believed that Jones would get the job, and that led to his belief that the person with 10 coins in their pocket would get the job. According to No false lemmas, Smith wouldn’t have knowledge as his conclusion is deduced from a belief which is