Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

Epistemology Also called Gettier's paradox or Gettier's example. Since Plato's Theaetetus, propositional knowledge has been standardly defined as justified true belief, whose analysis is as follows: A knows P if and only if (1) p is true, (2) A believes P, and (3) A is justified in believing P. This traditional tripartite analysis is challenged by Gettier in a paper entitled “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” (Analysis, 1963). Gettier constructs counter-examples to this definition. One of them is as follows. Smith applied for the same job as Jones. He believes that Jones will get the job and also that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. He is thus justified in deducing the belief that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. As it turns out, Smith himself gets the job and he happens to have ten coins in his pocket. Thus the belief that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket is true, and Smith is justified in believing it. But he does not know it. It shows that the traditional analysis of knowledge is problematic, for A does not know P even though all three conditions are met.Gettier's problem has caused a long-standing debate about the nature of propositional knowledge and has changed the course of epistemology to a considerable extent. There are many attempts to challenge the validity of Gettier's counter-examples. There are also many ... log in or subscribe to read full text