How One Man Accidentally Changed Philosophy Forever

Summary

In this philosophical discussion, the speaker explores Edmund Gettier's challenge to the classical theory of knowledge as 'Justified True Belief' (JTB). Gettier’s famous cases reveal that having a justified true belief does not necessarily equate to knowledge. The transcript illustrates this with examples such as a job interview and a mistaken belief about seeing a horse behind a hedge, showing how coincidence or error can undermine knowledge. The conversation highlights the profound shift Gettier's work caused in epistemology, prompting a reevaluation of how knowledge is defined.

Takeaways

• 😀 Knowledge traditionally defined as Justified True Belief (JTB) requires three conditions: truth, belief, and justification.
• 😀 Gettier's challenge to JTB questions whether having a justified true belief always qualifies as knowledge.
• 😀 Gettier cases highlight scenarios where a person has a justified true belief, but it intuitively seems they don’t know something.
• 😀 One example of a Gettier case: A person believes they will get a job based on strong reasoning, but the outcome is based on coincidence, making their belief true but not knowledge.
• 😀 Another example: A person believes they are about to see a horse behind a hedge, but it turns out to be a child on their father’s back, and the horse is coincidentally in the background.
• 😀 Gettier’s counterexamples force a rethinking of the nature of knowledge, showing that JTB might not be enough to define it.
• 😀 These types of philosophical revelations, like Gettier's work, occur rarely but have a transformative impact on the field, akin to scientific discoveries such as the Higgs boson.
• 😀 The difficulty of defining knowledge is highlighted by the challenges posed by Gettier cases, where belief can align with truth without genuine understanding.
• 😀 Traditional philosophy held that knowledge was something stable and clear, but Gettier's cases suggest that this view may be incomplete or flawed.
• 😀 Philosophical revolutions, such as the one brought by Gettier, are significant moments in the history of epistemology, altering how knowledge and belief are understood.

Q & A

What is the traditional definition of knowledge in philosophy?

The traditional definition of knowledge in philosophy is 'Justified True Belief' (JTB). According to this definition, for someone to 'know' something, they must believe it to be true, have a justified reason for their belief, and the belief must indeed be true.

Who challenged the traditional definition of knowledge, and what was the nature of their challenge?

Edmund Gettier challenged the traditional definition of knowledge in the 20th century. He argued that the 'Justified True Belief' (JTB) definition of knowledge is not sufficient because there are situations where someone can have a justified true belief without actually knowing something. These scenarios are now called 'Gettier cases'.

What is a Gettier case?

A Gettier case is an example in epistemology where someone has a justified true belief, but it still seems wrong to say they 'know' something. These cases demonstrate that JTB alone doesn't account for the full nature of knowledge.

Can you describe one of the Gettier cases mentioned in the script?

One of the Gettier cases involves a person who believes they will get a job because of a positive interview outcome. They also believe the other candidate will have 10 coins in their pocket, and by coincidence, the other candidate does indeed have 10 coins. Despite having a justified true belief, the person does not truly know the other candidate will have 10 coins, as their belief was based on faulty reasoning.

What is the significance of the Gettier case involving the child behind the hedge?

In this case, a person believes they are about to see a horse because they see a child bouncing behind a hedge. They assume the child is riding a horse, but in reality, the child is on their father's back, and there just happens to be a horse in the background. This scenario shows that even though the belief was justified and true, it was based on incorrect reasoning, so it challenges the adequacy of the JTB definition of knowledge.

Why is the traditional 'Justified True Belief' definition of knowledge considered inadequate after Gettier’s challenge?

The traditional JTB definition of knowledge is considered inadequate because Gettier's cases reveal that it's possible to have a justified true belief without actually knowing something. These cases show that the definition doesn't account for situations where beliefs happen to be true by coincidence rather than by reliable reasoning or evidence.

What are the implications of Gettier’s challenge for epistemology?

Gettier's challenge has significant implications for epistemology because it raises questions about the nature of knowledge. It suggests that epistemologists need to find a more refined definition of knowledge that goes beyond JTB and addresses situations where justified true beliefs do not count as genuine knowledge.

What is the main idea behind the 'Justified True Belief' (JTB) theory of knowledge?

The main idea behind the JTB theory of knowledge is that for someone to 'know' something, three conditions must be met: the person must believe the proposition, the belief must be true, and the person must have a justified reason for believing it. This theory has been a dominant view in philosophy for centuries.

What makes a belief justified, according to the traditional definition of knowledge?

A belief is justified when the person has good reasons or evidence to support the belief, making it reasonable for them to hold that belief. Justification typically involves having reliable evidence or logical reasoning to back up the belief.

How does the 'Gettier case' challenge the idea that justified true belief is sufficient for knowledge?

The Gettier case challenges the idea by showing that it is possible to have a justified true belief without genuinely knowing something. In Gettier cases, a belief may be justified and true, but the person arrives at the truth through faulty reasoning or luck, not through a reliable justification, which makes it seem wrong to say they 'know' it.