Problemas Gettier

Summary

This lecture delves into Edmund Gettier's famous 1963 paper, which challenges the traditional definition of knowledge as 'justified true belief.' Gettier's work demonstrates that justified true beliefs do not necessarily constitute knowledge, highlighting the need for a refined understanding of epistemology. The lecture explores Gettier’s argument with examples, showing how beliefs can be justified and true yet still fail to represent knowledge due to elements of luck or coincidence. This has led to significant changes in epistemological theories, including externalism, which offers a new perspective on how knowledge is understood. The discussion underscores the ongoing debate in contemporary philosophy regarding the nature of knowledge.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Gettier problem challenges the traditional definition of knowledge as a justified true belief, questioning whether these conditions are sufficient for knowledge.
• 😀 Gettier introduced cases where a justified true belief does not constitute knowledge, demonstrating the need for a more nuanced understanding of epistemology.
• 😀 The traditional definition of knowledge, often described as a belief that is both true and justified, faces criticism because it can lead to false positives in determining knowledge.
• 😀 Some philosophers, influenced by Wittgenstein, propose that knowledge might not have a fixed, universal definition but instead could be seen as a family resemblance concept.
• 😀 The search for necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, as posed by Gettier, suggests that these conditions might not be sufficient to determine when someone truly knows something.
• 😀 Gettier's argument shows that even when someone has a justified, true belief, they may not actually know the proposition due to an element of luck or coincidence.
• 😀 One key point of the Gettier problem is that a belief can be justified and true, but still not count as knowledge because the justification may not align with the truth in the right way.
• 😀 An example presented in the script involves Smith, who is justified in believing that someone else, Jones, will get the job because he sees Jones has 10 coins in his pocket, but Smith himself ends up getting the job, creating a false justification despite the belief being true.
• 😀 Gettier's problem has sparked debates about whether knowledge can be defined by clear-cut conditions or whether a broader, more flexible conceptualization is needed, such as externalism.
• 😀 The article's influence on epistemology has led to shifts in theories, with some philosophers now proposing that knowledge might be better understood through theories like externalism, where the justification of belief does not need to be consciously available to the believer.

Q & A

What is the central issue raised by Edmund Gettier's 1963 article?

The central issue raised by Edmund Gettier in his 1963 article is the question of whether 'justified true belief' is sufficient for knowledge. He challenges the traditional definition of knowledge, which suggests that knowledge is a belief that is both true and justified, by showing that there are cases where these conditions are met, but the subject still does not possess knowledge.

How does Gettier's argument challenge the traditional definition of knowledge?

Gettier's argument challenges the traditional definition of knowledge by showing that there are situations where a belief is both true and justified, yet the person holding that belief does not actually know the proposition. This creates a 'false positive' situation where the traditional conditions of justified true belief are met, but knowledge is still lacking.

What are the three necessary conditions for knowledge according to the traditional view?

The traditional view holds that for someone to know a proposition 'p', three conditions must be met: (1) The proposition must be true, (2) The person must believe the proposition, and (3) The person must be justified in believing the proposition.

What is the problem that Gettier highlights using the case of Smith and Jones?

Gettier uses the case of Smith and Jones to illustrate a situation where the three conditions for knowledge (truth, belief, and justification) are satisfied, yet the subject does not know the proposition. In the case, Smith believes that Jones will get the job and that Jones has ten coins in his pocket, but in a twist of fate, Smith himself ends up with the job and has ten coins in his pocket, making his belief true by coincidence, not by justification.

What role does justification play in the Gettier problem?

Justification is crucial in the Gettier problem, as the person in the example (Smith) is justified in believing the proposition that 'Jones will get the job and has ten coins in his pocket.' However, despite the justification, the belief is only true due to coincidence (Smith, not Jones, gets the job and has ten coins), which prevents it from being knowledge.

Why does Gettier argue that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge?

Gettier argues that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge because it is possible for someone to have a belief that is both justified and true, but still not know the proposition, due to an element of luck or coincidence. This undermines the traditional view that these three conditions are both necessary and sufficient for knowledge.

What is the 'concept of family' in relation to knowledge, as discussed in the script?

The 'concept of family,' as discussed in the script, refers to the idea that knowledge might not have a single, fixed essence that can be defined universally. Instead, knowledge might be understood through a family of related instances, where different examples share similarities, but there may not be a single characteristic that applies to all cases of knowledge.

How does Gettier’s critique influence modern epistemology?

Gettier’s critique has had a significant impact on modern epistemology by challenging the traditional view of knowledge and prompting philosophers to reconsider how knowledge should be defined. Many philosophers have sought to refine or abandon the traditional definition of knowledge, leading to the development of new theories such as externalism and the theory of virtue epistemology.

What is externalism, and how does it relate to the Gettier problem?

Externalism is a theory in epistemology that suggests a belief can count as knowledge even if the individual is not consciously aware of the evidence supporting it, as long as the belief correctly tracks the truth. This approach contrasts with the internalist view, where the subject must have access to the justification for their belief. Externalism can help avoid the Gettier problem by allowing knowledge to be true through external factors, even if the subject's belief is not justified in the way traditionally required.

Why does the concept of 'virtue epistemology' provide an alternative to the Gettier problem?

Virtue epistemology provides an alternative to the Gettier problem by emphasizing the intellectual virtues of the person forming the belief. According to this view, a belief counts as knowledge not just because it is justified and true, but because the person who holds the belief has exercised intellectual virtues, such as careful reasoning, in arriving at that belief. This helps to avoid cases where a true and justified belief is merely a matter of luck, as in Gettier cases.