The Gettier Problem Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

The Gettier Problem - Essay ExampleGettiers argument says that it is possible that a person believes in something that is justified as well as wrong at the very(prenominal) time. One flaw is that Gettiers argument can lead us to cynicism because it is evident from our everyday lives that it is precisely the case when something is justified by satisfactory evidence that fulfills solely philosophical rules of relevant evidence.Gettier wrote his 1963 paper refuting the warrant true Belief JTB. If Gettiers paper is considered true than JTB nullifies but the following example exposes cracks in Gettiers paper.S knows that P if and only ifS believes PP is trueS is justified in believing P And P causes S to believe in P This example excludes the example of Gettier. And doesnt believe in something as a given fact, for instance if there is a group of severalize and whizz person out of the group happens to be Brazilian, the above example cannot give me the position to state that I know that someone out of this group is a Brazilian since this fact will not be my cause for knowing. In his paper, is justified true belief knowledge of 1963, Edmund Gettier raised a business which he argued and viewed in the traditional knowledge surmise. Many attempts by a number of epistemologists have failed, for example, doubting Thomas Paxson and Keith Lehrer put across a theory, which utilized the defeasibility argument to attempt solving the Gettier problem (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237). In my opinion, Gettiers problems possibly cannot be beaten of defeated on the basis of principles because in order to understand these problems one has to consider the premise of these problems as true, as it will explained later in this paper that Gettier only plays with the plea and the truth. And it is evident that there is a very fine line between the justification and the truth. Moreover, there is everlastingly a certain level of truth to be accepted by a prudent person. For instance, if w e every(prenominal) agree to the fact that a billiard ball is down, the question is, is it really round in incarnation? Students of physics might know that when things ar observed at molecular levels, the shapes and boundaries of objects are very divers(prenominal) from what they were previously considered. So a billiard ball might not be exactly round at a very fine microscopic or atomic level. Similarly if we Gettiers problems are considered a law or considered sufficient enough to define knowledge then(prenominal) the shape of the demesne can be figured out by a bowling ball. For instance it is a commonalty observation that a bowling ball is considered heavy and it is common sense that earth is holding all forests, water, land and mountains, and is also a very heavy object. Now the bowling ball is round in shape, therefore we can conclude that the earth is also round in shape. I believe that it satisfies Gettiers problem but this is infect a terrible logic, there is no re levance between the deuce objects. If only such premises are considered then earth would be shaped like a washing machine because a washing machine is heavy too. One of the many objectives of epistemologists is to come up with a theory of knowledge that specifies the necessary conditions for knowledge. Traditionally, scientists have only agreed to three of these conditions, and they include p is true, s believes in p, and s has a justification to believe in p. according to the theories, if the theories satisfied the conditions then one could say that s knows p. but then Gettier came along with his arguments. In his arguments, he proposed to counterarguments to the traditional conditions, where the theory