ipl-logo

Gettier's Arguments Against The Justified True Belief

1241 Words5 Pages

Prior to presenting his first case, Gettier makes two explicit assumptions. First, he assumes that it is possible to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false. Second, he assumes that if a person is justified in believing a proposition, and recognizes that the proposition entails a second proposition, then the person is justified in believing the second proposition. What role do these two assumptions play in Gettier’s argument against the justified true belief analysis of knowledge? What do you think of these two assumptions? Would it be possible to respond to Gettier’s argument by rejecting one of the two assumptions? If so, what form might the response take? If both of the assumptions are acceptable, does Gettier’s conclusion follow? Once you have completed …show more content…

Belief - a person must believe that p.
2. Truth - the person’s belief that p must be true; if it is not true, it is not knowledge. Even in the case when a belief is mistaken, the believer could feel as if it’s true, but even then, the belief is not knowledge, as it is not true.
3. Justification - the person’s belief that p needs to be supported with any form of rational justification. Without justification, the belief is not knowledge even if it is true.

If all these statements are met, then a person has JTB. JTB says that anytime anyone has a justified true belief that “p”, then he knows that “p”, and that if any one of these statements are not met, then one cannot know that “p”.

Gettier states that it is possible to be justified in believing a false proposition. He then explains that if a person is justified in believing a proposition, even if it is false, and that first proposition entails a second proposition, then the person is consequently justified in believing the second proposition

Open Document