The No Defeaters Theory of epistemology seeks to solve the Gettier Problem in epistemic justification and be a solid means of epistemically justifying an individual's beliefs. The Gettier Problem is a commonly discussed challenge to the traditional way of defining knowledge. The traditional way is when a person has a belief that turns out to be accurate and true, while he is also justified for having that belief. For example, Peter claims that the Cleveland Cavaliers won the NBA Finals. Peter is a very dedicated sports fan and pays close attention to basketball, looks at all the stats, knows which players perform best against what type of conditions, and obviously watched the game to see that the Cavaliers won. Peter is justified for having
…show more content…
The view is the most plausible of the fellow well-known theories in epistemic justification. The theory asserts that a person’s belief constitutes knowledge if the belief is true, justified, and has no defeaters. A defeater is defined as a belief that is incompatible with another belief. In the Smith and Jones case, the defeater is Smith being told that Jones will land the job, the belief that the recipient of the job has ten coins in his pocket stems from that information and is not compatible with how Smith derives his final conclusion. Hence, Smith’s argument will not constitute as epistemic knowledge. This is a plausible theory because it helps rule out basically any hypothetical or real situation derived from epistemic luck while also containing the original groundwork of justified true belief to appoint knowledge to regular …show more content…
Even though there are objections to shoot out towards the theory, I will still hold and defend its plausibility. A possible objection one may spew is slightly tied with Descartes hypothetical situation in epistemology he wrote about in Meditations, stating that there may not be a real external world and everything that is perceived may be either an illusion or dream. An opposer to No Defeaters may say that there is no concrete evidence that any of this is real, and that itself is a defeater to any possible scenario of knowledge justification for a belief. Peter believing that the Cavaliers won the NBA Finals no longer constitutes as knowledge because the team, the championship, and even basketball itself is simply an illusion/dream that Peter is experiencing, hence defeating the knowledge that he has. In rebuttal to this argument, you should consider this concept, if one is in deep sleep and having a long, very specific, and detailed dream, would he or she not be correct in their assumptions throughout the dream? Justin, for example, could be having a dream where he is golfing. During the golf session he hit a hole-in-one at the 14th hole, he knows this since he experienced it happening within the dream. If we take this a step further, we can imagine that Justin is lucid dreaming, fully aware of the fact that he is dreaming, in full control of his actions and the scenarios
The view is the most plausible of the fellow well-known theories in epistemic justification. The theory asserts that a person’s belief constitutes knowledge if the belief is true, justified, and has no defeaters. A defeater is defined as a belief that is incompatible with another belief. In the Smith and Jones case, the defeater is Smith being told that Jones will land the job, the belief that the recipient of the job has ten coins in his pocket stems from that information and is not compatible with how Smith derives his final conclusion. Hence, Smith’s argument will not constitute as epistemic knowledge. This is a plausible theory because it helps rule out basically any hypothetical or real situation derived from epistemic luck while also containing the original groundwork of justified true belief to appoint knowledge to regular …show more content…
Even though there are objections to shoot out towards the theory, I will still hold and defend its plausibility. A possible objection one may spew is slightly tied with Descartes hypothetical situation in epistemology he wrote about in Meditations, stating that there may not be a real external world and everything that is perceived may be either an illusion or dream. An opposer to No Defeaters may say that there is no concrete evidence that any of this is real, and that itself is a defeater to any possible scenario of knowledge justification for a belief. Peter believing that the Cavaliers won the NBA Finals no longer constitutes as knowledge because the team, the championship, and even basketball itself is simply an illusion/dream that Peter is experiencing, hence defeating the knowledge that he has. In rebuttal to this argument, you should consider this concept, if one is in deep sleep and having a long, very specific, and detailed dream, would he or she not be correct in their assumptions throughout the dream? Justin, for example, could be having a dream where he is golfing. During the golf session he hit a hole-in-one at the 14th hole, he knows this since he experienced it happening within the dream. If we take this a step further, we can imagine that Justin is lucid dreaming, fully aware of the fact that he is dreaming, in full control of his actions and the scenarios