Determining what the true definition of knowledge is has been a topic of debate among philosophers for centuries. Establishing the difference between knowledge and opinion is no easy task, and many theories dealing with this issue have arose over the years. Today, the most widely recognized theory for quantifying knowledge is the justified true belief theory, based on three conditions that each need to be satisfied for one to be considered to have knowledge. While this theory holds true in a great deal of cases, there are counter examples in Gettier cases that show the justified true belief theory to not always hold strong.
The justified true belief theory of knowledge is an attempt to provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions …show more content…
Even though this model is widely accepted as the working model of knowledge, there are instances where this theory is false. There are times when one can come to believe something that is true from beliefs that are false. Called Gettier cases, these are instances in which a person does have a justified true belief, but in which there is no knowledge. An example of a Gettier case might be as follows: A roommate moving into a new house might want to bring their cat. One of the roommates already living there, roommate A, claims to be allergic to cats, showing the new roommate doctors notes, allergy medicine, and epinephrine pens. The new roommate comes to believe that roommate A is allergic to cats, so someone already living in the house is allergic to cats. However, roommate A isn’t allergic to cats, but another roommate already living in the house, roommate B, is allergic to cats. The new roommate came to the correct conclusion that someone in the house was allergic to cats using the justified yet untrue belief that roommate A was allergic to cats. As well as being based off of an untrue justified belief, Gettier cases must also be fallible. Although the justification provides sound support for the truth of the belief in question, the support is not entirely perfect and leaves room for the possibility that the belief may actually be false. While the new roommate was entirely justified in believing that roommate A was indeed allergic to cats, the evidence provided did not rule out all other possibilities, so there was still a chance that the belief was false. However, the new roommate was able to arrive at the correct justified true belief that someone in the house is allergic to cats based upon the untrue justified belief that roommate A was the one allergic to
The justified true belief theory of knowledge is an attempt to provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions …show more content…
Even though this model is widely accepted as the working model of knowledge, there are instances where this theory is false. There are times when one can come to believe something that is true from beliefs that are false. Called Gettier cases, these are instances in which a person does have a justified true belief, but in which there is no knowledge. An example of a Gettier case might be as follows: A roommate moving into a new house might want to bring their cat. One of the roommates already living there, roommate A, claims to be allergic to cats, showing the new roommate doctors notes, allergy medicine, and epinephrine pens. The new roommate comes to believe that roommate A is allergic to cats, so someone already living in the house is allergic to cats. However, roommate A isn’t allergic to cats, but another roommate already living in the house, roommate B, is allergic to cats. The new roommate came to the correct conclusion that someone in the house was allergic to cats using the justified yet untrue belief that roommate A was allergic to cats. As well as being based off of an untrue justified belief, Gettier cases must also be fallible. Although the justification provides sound support for the truth of the belief in question, the support is not entirely perfect and leaves room for the possibility that the belief may actually be false. While the new roommate was entirely justified in believing that roommate A was indeed allergic to cats, the evidence provided did not rule out all other possibilities, so there was still a chance that the belief was false. However, the new roommate was able to arrive at the correct justified true belief that someone in the house is allergic to cats based upon the untrue justified belief that roommate A was the one allergic to