The Platonic definition of knowledge is ‘justified true belief’, this concept was widely accepted until Gettier published his paper “Is Justified true belief knowledge?”, since then many philosophers have looked to refine the definition of knowledge. In this essay, I will be constructing Gettier cases to show that one can have a justified true belief (JTB) in X without knowing X. I will then analyse these cases with common criticisms and defences of them, subsequently, I will present an alternative view to the justification component of Knowledge.
According to the Platonic definition, A person has knowledge if three conditions are met. Firstly, to know if Durham has a castle (Y), one must believe Y. Secondly, this belief has to be true. Thirdly, one has knowledge about Y, if their belief is justified with evidence. These conditions are apparent in the tripartite analysis of knowledge and they are individually necessary and together …show more content…
Moreover, let us envisage that the place mentioned in proposition c), Durham, does actually have a castle. If these conditions hold, the student has a justified true belief of proposition c) without actually knowing that c) is true. Here she has a JTB without having knowledge.
Goldman’s (1967) Fake Barn Country case can be adapted to produce another example.
Suppose you are driving through Durham, with the area unbeknownst to you, the locals have constructed papier-mâché castles to celebrate the construction of the only real castle. The models are unrecognisable from the real castle from this distance, and with your eyesight being normal and reliable, you form the belief that ‘that’s a fine castle’.
You happen to be referring to the one real castle in Durham. Had you looked at the local’s masterpieces you would have had a false belief. Your belief, is justifiably true but you do not have
According to the Platonic definition, A person has knowledge if three conditions are met. Firstly, to know if Durham has a castle (Y), one must believe Y. Secondly, this belief has to be true. Thirdly, one has knowledge about Y, if their belief is justified with evidence. These conditions are apparent in the tripartite analysis of knowledge and they are individually necessary and together …show more content…
Moreover, let us envisage that the place mentioned in proposition c), Durham, does actually have a castle. If these conditions hold, the student has a justified true belief of proposition c) without actually knowing that c) is true. Here she has a JTB without having knowledge.
Goldman’s (1967) Fake Barn Country case can be adapted to produce another example.
Suppose you are driving through Durham, with the area unbeknownst to you, the locals have constructed papier-mâché castles to celebrate the construction of the only real castle. The models are unrecognisable from the real castle from this distance, and with your eyesight being normal and reliable, you form the belief that ‘that’s a fine castle’.
You happen to be referring to the one real castle in Durham. Had you looked at the local’s masterpieces you would have had a false belief. Your belief, is justifiably true but you do not have