GETTIER'S PROBLEM

What is the significance of Gettier's Problem? How would you reply?

What is the significance of Gettier's Problem? How would you reply?

Introduction

If we analyze Gettier's counterexamples, it can be ascertained that the collapse proposals seem as if they have been done by Chisholm and Ayer. I find it quite surprising that almost everyone under the banner of epistemology has completely accepted the challenge of Gettier and has terminated the deal to try and save the definitions of knowledge. Most people believe that Gettier's assumptions are right.

He devoted a considerable amount of effort in designing an alternative characterization of knowledge, which can be related to his counterexamples. But, very few authors have managed to resist Gettier's arguments. After carefully analyzing Gettier's arguments, I could not find their strength. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, in this paper I would adopt a different approach. I intend to prove that the standard characterization of knowledge; in terms of CVJ is not threatened by Gettier counterexamples.

For the achievement of the goal, I would argue that Gettier counterexamples were based on illegitimate replacements. One of his argument seems persuasive only because it confuses truth syntactic validity semantics for such reasons that the case becomes weaker than it appears. In short, I would argue that Gettier's cases do not serve as genuine counterexamples to the definition of knowledge in terms of CVJ.

Discussion

First case

Gettier in his argument, begins with an orthodox characterization and seeks to attain the adequate circumstances for knowledge in terms of CVJ:

The subject S is aware of the fact that the proposition P will be true if:

P is true.

S believes that P is true

S is justified in believing that P is true (Gettier, 1963, p. 121-123).

Gettier quotes Chisholm variants and Ayer who introduced the notion of "having adequate evidence for P" and the "have the right to be sure that P is true" respectively. According to Gettier, who one can argue against (a) can also argue against these variants if the above qualifiers are replaced by "is justified in believing that P".

Gettier argued that the requirements which arose in (a) fail to provide a "sufficient condition for the truth of the proposition that S knows that P" and that such failure causes (a) is false (Gettier, 1963, p. 121-123). In addition, he proposed that: (1) it is possible that a particular subject (S) is warranted in trusting the proposition (P) is false and (2) that justified belief can be transmitted from premises to the valid inferential conclusion of transactions.

After thoroughly analysing the above mentioned points, Gettier affirms that he was able to show that it is possible to satisfy the conditions in (a) and yet produce a situation where the statement that 'S' is aware of the fact that 'P' is true could be considered as false. To facilitate our purpose, we would reconstruct Gettier's argument for a better understanding of his principles and beliefs.

For instance, Smith and Jones applied for a job (presumably the same job in the ...