PHL101: Knowledge and Skepticism

What is the Justified true belief analysis?

S knows that P if and only if

(i) it is true that P,
(ii) S believes that P, and
(iii) S is justified in believing that P

How can one know that it is true that P…?

Rationale for (i): knowledge is “factive” in that only facts/true
propositions can be known. Thus, knowing that P is like realizing that P, not like believing that P (even if knowing involves believing)

How can one know that S believes that P…?

Rationale for (ii): one can’t know a fact unless one has some sort of, perhaps very weak, psychological attitude of acceptance towards it— call that attitude “belief.”

How can one know that is justified in believing that P…?

Rationale for (iii): As Plato (via Socrates) puts it in his dialogue Meno, knowledge is not mere “correct opinion.” Correct opinion becomes knowledge, he says, only when it is “shackled” by “figuring out what makes [it] true”

What is the Gettier problem?

Gettier’s argument takes off from two assumptions:
• Assumption 1—In whatever sense of “justified” that is relevant to
clause (iii) above, it is possible for someone to be justified in believing something false.
• Assumption 2—“For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P and P entails Q and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q”

The actual problem is as follows: Smith and Jones are both up for a promotion. Jones knows that Smith has 10 coins in his pocket, and has been told that the man who will get the promotion has 10 coins in his pocket. Jones has justified true belief in stating that Smith will get the promotion. Yet, Jones is unaware of the 10 coins in his pocket, and he actually gets the promotion.

The issue is that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge, even if all aspects are individually required, one can fulfill all the parts and not ‘know’

No one can be justified in believing anything unless ones evidence for believing P guarantees that P is true

What are some proposed solutions to the Gettier problem? Why don’t they work?

No one can be justified in believing anything unless ones evidence for believing P guarantees that P is true - issue, what counts as guaranteeing evidence, if this was true it would be too hard to know anything

adding a condition which states that knowledge can not be the result of reasoning through any false steps - such as assuming that because Smith and the man promoted both have 10 coins in their pocket, means they are one in the same

The above condition won’t work because sometimes we come across knowledge due to luck eg. fake barn county, where every barn is fake and you happen to look at the only real barn and conclude that it is a barn - context such as fake barn county, information that gives you reason not to believe something, are called defeaters

How has the JTB been adapted to account for the Gettier problem, and the failure of the proposed solutions?

S knows that P if and only if: (i) it is true that P,
(ii) S believes that P,
(iii) if it weren’t true that P, then S wouldn’t believe that P,
and
(iv) if it were true that P, then S would believe that P.
Basic idea: knowledge is what you have when your belief state “tracks the truth,” like a
heat-seeking missile tracking its target