Concepts in epistemology

Solving the Gettier Problem American philosopher Edmund L. Gettier challenges the way knowledge is analyzed in his famous 1963 paper “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Gettier writes two cases in his paper, which illustrate that knowledge is more than just true belief and justification. As a side note: when I refer to the term “justification,” readers should know that justification is different from one person to another. Also, justification can change throughout time (Mason, “D. Knowledge 1”). Justification requires having good reasons. Back to the point, these cases have known to be called “Gettier cases.” They ultimately demonstrate that having a justified, true belief is necessary, but not sufficient for knowledge. These Gettier cases are counter-examples to the classical analysis of knowledge. A counter-example is 1) an exception that makes a belief or statement false and 2) a case that makes an argument invalid (Mason, “Quiz 2”). So what deems a situation a “Gettier case?” A proper Gettier case has the following: 1) “S” (meaning a person or subject) forms a belief in a way that would normally lead to a false belief 2) S’s belief is justified and 3) S’s belief happens to be true (Mason, “D. Knowledge 2”). In a Gettier case, someone does not have knowledge because the truth of the belief and justification fail to relate appropriately to each other. In contrast to Gettier, there is “the classical analysis of knowledge.” This theory of knowledge means that having a…

Coherentism has not gained much recognition throughout the history of philosophy. According to the traditional definition of knowledge, knowledge is Justified True Belief. Hence, one must first justify their belief before they can acquire any knowledge. Since most of the time the beliefs we assume we have justified and are justified based on other belief. Consequently, this promotes the concept of regress argument where the philosophers are on the quest to truly justify a belief thus we can know…

The standard analysis of knowledge is the Tripartite Theory (or, JTB, for short). This theory defines knowledge as ‘justified true belief’: S knows that P if and only if (i) P is true, (ii) S believes that P, and (iii) S is justified in believing that P. Each of these three conditions (truth, belief, and justification) is necessary for knowledge, and altogether they are jointly sufficient for having knowledge. As a counter to JTB, Edmund Gettier posed a serious challenge when he introduced…

Porsche. So in the grand scheme all previous knowledge of Smith and their car is abolished, but since there is no grand record keeper of all knowledge at all times the argument seems moot to the task it is trying to achieve. In that moment Pete has knowledge at an intimate level that Smith has a Ford, Smith, and a third party has knowledge that Smith has a Porsche. All of this knowledge is true knowledge. At the moment that knowledge changes for an individual is when that knowledge is part of…

then it follows that our disposition in arriving at true knowledge is truth-driven. Zagzebski defines knowledge as, “cognitive contact with reality arising out of acts of intellectual virtue.” Arriving to moral and intellectual virtues is based on circumstance and motivation. Virtues are properties that add to the characteristics of a person. Virtuous motivation that results with an act can result from epistemic motives. The motivational component of the act must entail the virtue for it to be…

how these concepts will affect the way that I will teacher. Personally, I have learned a lot through this class this semester but I have not experienced any conceptual change. I believe that I am currently in the pre-dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction stages of the concepts discussed. My concepts have not changed, they have just been reinforced. I enjoyed and could relate to the Zirbel article that discussed concept changed. This is the first time I have experienced this when reading an article…

Kant attributes Hume as his inspiration to the critique of pure reason as Hume’s work motivated him to prove Hume wrong. Specifically, Kant worked against Hume’s concept of causation. Where Hume found no necessity in causation nor of causation, Kant found causation necessary in both senses- otherwise no one would be able to navigate the world. However, Kant’s critique of Hume is much more general than causation, Kant through causation is asserting the existence of synthetic a priori judgements.…

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge which aims to answer the question “How do we know?” In epistemology, we study nature, source, limits and validity of all knowledge. More specifically, epistemology considers the question “What is Knowledge?” and how does one obtain knowledge. Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of specific aspects of truth, belief and justification. Knowledge acquisition can be obtained through epistemology through a rationalism or empiricism approach. I will…

Traditionally, epistemology has been defined as the theory of knowledge in which the primary goal has been to obtain truth while avoiding false beliefs . Knowledge was defined and universally accepted to be “Justified True Belief”. However, this was challenged when Edmund Gettier released a 1963 paper which demonstrated that justified true beliefs are intuitively not sufficient for knowledge due to epistemic luck. This sudden revelation triggered “a cottage industry of knowledge-analysers” ,…

College of Nursing October 9, 2015 Discussion Question 2 The word epistemology itself comes from two Greek words ?Episteme? meaning knowledge or understanding and ?Logia? meaning science or study. In a philosophical context, epistemology is the ?study of knowledge and justified belief,? examples of philosophical questions are: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? To justify a belief, examples of…