Gettier's Argument Is Virtue

In knowledge, we are unable to make the statement that we believe something to be true. If we believe something to be true, we most show that we believe something to be true and justify why we believe the statement to be true. Edmund Gettier, a professor of philosophy at University of Massachusetts at Amherst came up with those conditions on how to sufficiently give the necessary conditions for knowledge. The conditions that Gettier created argues that they are incorrect that the traditional analysis is mistaken. As philosophers, we all have different interpretations for knowledge, but Gettier belief that his conditions for knowledge are false… Gettier had a similar yet different set of conditions for knowledge. The different set of conditions

Gettier argues that the above proposition is false by using an example in which the result fails to conclude the same result as his conditions. An example that Gettier uses involves two people: Smith and Jones. Jones, is the man who will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket. For P to be true in the above statement, Jones must have been assured he would receive the job after the selection process and that he had previously counted the change in his pocket. For the second proposition to be true, the man (either jones or smith) must have the 10 coins in their pockets since we were told that the man who receives the job will have two coins in his pocket. Finally, for the third proposition to be true, S must be justified in believing that P is true and as Gettier says, Smith is obviously justified in believing that the man who receives the job will have ten coins in his pocket considering that’s what he was told by those who are trying to hire

An example using this proposition is that Smith cannot know that he got the job just because he has the coins in his pocket. Other applicants could have had ten coins in their pockets as well. Therefore, Smith does not have the apparent knowledge that he knows he will be hired because he wasn’t told he was hired, but he’s just lucky to have been hired and it wasn’t based off of knowledge. Ichikawa and Steup counter Gettiers original conditions by countering to show that (iv) does not succeed in being a solution to Gettiers problem. One of their counter-examples if a god that say S is observing. This dog, which looks like a real dog but is really a robot dog. S is unaware that the dog is a robot and not a real dog since the resemblance is uncanny. However, behind a bush is a real dog do S’s belief that he is watching a real dog is true and since its based off of observation, his perception of what he is seeing is justified. But his belief is a matter of luck says Gettier since his view is justified by what he is seeing and not be mentally knowing that he is looking at a real dog. Ichikawa and Steup’s; hense, conclude that the conditions including the additional one is not knowledge since S had a belief and justified his sights without really knowing whether what he was seeing was true or