People are constantly trying to find ways to gain knowledge. But not everyone spends time to stop and think of what knowing something really entails. What does it mean to have knowledge? This question has plagued the minds of philosophers for years. In order to answer such a fundamental question, Plato designed the justified true belief theory. This theory attempts to analyze the nature of knowledge by listing conditions that must be met in order to know a certain proposition. While the justified-true-belief theory holds true for most circumstances, there are situations where it falls short, leading us to question if knowledge is even possible to obtain.
According to the analysis, knowledge is equivalent to justified true belief. A person …show more content…
The knower must be able to justify why they believe that p is true. Justification can come in varying degrees and different forms, such as evidence or reasoning. In order to be certain, the knower must be able to provide evidence and reason for why he/she believes the proposition to be true. If the person is not able to, it can come into question whether this person actually knows something. For example, there is a cat in front of your house and you believe that there is a cat, but in order to know for certain you have to be able to justify why you believe there is a cat. For instance, you can say that the cat resembles the cats you have seen before, the cat feels like a cat and the cat is meowing. This is enough justification to back up your belief, adding credibility to your proposition. Truth, belief, and justification work together to provide a generic format of what knowledge is. Some philosophers say that this is all you need to have knowledge but certain situations can questioned the accuracy of the entire …show more content…
Gettier cases describe situations where the knower can fulfill all three conditions and still not have knowledge. For example, suppose Mr. Barker, a high school history teacher, is suspecting his student, Austin, of cheating on a test. Before the test began, Austin moves from the front of the class to the back unexpectedly with no explanation as to why he moved seats. Because of this sudden change, Mr. Barker is already growing suspicion of Austin’s intentions and decides to keep a closer eye on him throughout the exam. During the duration of the exam, Mr. Barker observes Austin’s behavior and notices that he is showing several warning signs of cheating. Austin is constantly looking down at his lap, whispering softly to classmates around him, and fidgeting with his water bottle label. Austin’s suspicious actions causes Mr. Barker to infer that he is cheating. Based on his beliefs and justification, Mr. Barker comes to the conclusion that a student in his class is cheating on the history exam. Mr. Barker has adequate amount of evidence and reason to believe that his student is cheating on the test. He has a justified belief that is also true; there is indeed a student cheating on his test. According to the theory, Mr. Barker has fulfilled all three conditions necessary to know that there is a student cheating on his test
According to the analysis, knowledge is equivalent to justified true belief. A person …show more content…
The knower must be able to justify why they believe that p is true. Justification can come in varying degrees and different forms, such as evidence or reasoning. In order to be certain, the knower must be able to provide evidence and reason for why he/she believes the proposition to be true. If the person is not able to, it can come into question whether this person actually knows something. For example, there is a cat in front of your house and you believe that there is a cat, but in order to know for certain you have to be able to justify why you believe there is a cat. For instance, you can say that the cat resembles the cats you have seen before, the cat feels like a cat and the cat is meowing. This is enough justification to back up your belief, adding credibility to your proposition. Truth, belief, and justification work together to provide a generic format of what knowledge is. Some philosophers say that this is all you need to have knowledge but certain situations can questioned the accuracy of the entire …show more content…
Gettier cases describe situations where the knower can fulfill all three conditions and still not have knowledge. For example, suppose Mr. Barker, a high school history teacher, is suspecting his student, Austin, of cheating on a test. Before the test began, Austin moves from the front of the class to the back unexpectedly with no explanation as to why he moved seats. Because of this sudden change, Mr. Barker is already growing suspicion of Austin’s intentions and decides to keep a closer eye on him throughout the exam. During the duration of the exam, Mr. Barker observes Austin’s behavior and notices that he is showing several warning signs of cheating. Austin is constantly looking down at his lap, whispering softly to classmates around him, and fidgeting with his water bottle label. Austin’s suspicious actions causes Mr. Barker to infer that he is cheating. Based on his beliefs and justification, Mr. Barker comes to the conclusion that a student in his class is cheating on the history exam. Mr. Barker has adequate amount of evidence and reason to believe that his student is cheating on the test. He has a justified belief that is also true; there is indeed a student cheating on his test. According to the theory, Mr. Barker has fulfilled all three conditions necessary to know that there is a student cheating on his test