Gettier

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Gettier

Postby Faust » Thu Dec 19, 2019 10:54 pm

The problem with the Gettier problem is that knowledge is not a random collection of atomic facts. It's a system. Like all systems, from a certian point of view, it's self-referential.

Most people don't think of knowledge as some absolute perfection, a goal, an ideal. Most regular people think of it as lying along a continuum. We learn more of the system (here, a subsystem) as we go along. Regular people think of knowledge as dynamic. That knowledge is useful because it confers power. That's good enough for most peoople.

It's why we hate lawyers.

Or become one.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16897
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Dan~ » Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:33 pm

Therefor we adapt after realizations?
What kind of reader were you hoping to reach with your msg?
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10123
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Gettier

Postby Faust » Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:09 am

Your second question is surely rhetorical. I have no idea if anyone here has ever heard of Gettier. Ironically, nearlt everyone here seems to be an epistemologist.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16897
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Dan~ » Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:36 am

I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10123
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Gettier

Postby Faust » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:03 pm

Yup.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16897
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby MagsJ » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:08 pm

An interesting thread Faust, but do you have a question that you want answering? So guidance, if you please..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ


The Lions Anger is Noble
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 19460
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Nobilis Est Ira Leonis

Re: Gettier

Postby Faust » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:56 pm

No. Im just thought I'd bring up an epistemological problem that wasn't generated by a guy in a robe. Even though it was a guy in a robe that started all of this. Or two guys.

Hoping to snag a Gettier fan.

Maybe this belongs in the sand pit, or the dirtpile, or whatever that other forum is.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16897
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby promethean75 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:59 pm

no yeah i remember that guy. in fact, the old ILP member 'she' - remember 'she'? - sent me a print out of the problem in the mail with a copy of craig's 'reasonable faith', back in 2010. no kidding. but i vaguely remember the details, only that she was implying that not all true belief is justified (trying to turn me christian, bro), which the paper defended quite well.

seems to me i thought that this wasn't a remarkable epistemological problem, but i can't remember delving into it. couldn't we just say that that the dude was accidentally right? we only call smith's true belief 'unjustified' because the entailment was accidental. so he was right - the guy who gets the job will have ten coins in his pocket - but that guy is him, which he doesn't know.

i dunno maybe i'm missing the significance of the problem. lemme check it out later and get back into it. i'm just popping off what i vaguely remember from the paper.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2653
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Aegean » Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:47 pm

It belongs in a shit-hole, not a dirt-pile...so ILP is the perfect abysmal void.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby promethean75 » Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:55 pm

^^^ now what the hell was that!?

Jesus Christ dude. we can't take you anywhere. We're gonna have to start putting you on one of those dollies they put Hannibal lecter on whenever they moved him.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2653
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Aegean » Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:58 pm

Maybe this belongs in the sand pit, or the dirtpile, or whatever that other forum is.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:30 am

The Gettier problem merely shows that, at least in some senses of the word "justification", there are justified true beliefs that are not knowledge which implies that JTB is not a sufficient condition for knowledge.

Suppose that Plato believes that Socrates has a beard. You ask him for justification ("Hey Plato, why do you think that Socrates has a beard?") and he presents you with the following argument:

Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All men have a beard.
Conclusion: Socrates has a beard.

Even though the conclusion follows from the premises (which means it's justified) and even though Socrates does in fact have a beard (which means the conclusion is true), the resulting belief is not knowledge because the second premise, which is that all men have a beard, is not true, and that means that Plato arrived at truth by accident. That's the Gettier problem.

Assuming we all agree that the above conclusion is justified (which means that we all agree on the definition of the word "justification") and that we all agree that it is not knowledge (most of us won't agree we know something if we figured it out by chance), we can resolve the problem simply by adding an additional condition to the existing JTB criterion, that condition being "Every premise in the argument must be true."

So, more accurately, knowledge can be said to be a belief that is justified by true premises. So there you go. Now if you have a need for a more accurate model of the meaning of the word "knowledge", you know what to use. But I am sure that Plato's account is more than useful in most of the situations.

The Gettier problem is not much of a problem, so I don't really understand the point of this thread.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4125
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby MagsJ » Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:10 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:The Gettier problem is not much of a problem, so I don't really understand the point of this thread.

Indeed, but I’ve learned something new.. an interesting philosophical problem to ponder on, over one’s morning cornflakes or nightly nightcap.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ


The Lions Anger is Noble
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 19460
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Nobilis Est Ira Leonis

Re: Gettier

Postby Aegean » Sun Dec 22, 2019 11:58 am

The point of this thread is other than the thread's title.

As they say in the south...
"Gettier done!!!".

Crocodile baiting.
Aegean
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby promethean75 » Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:11 pm

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2653
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:27 am

I think it's a fair critique of Gettier....
that, yes, in certain instances jtb can miss something
does not eliminate it as a good overarching heuristic for knowledge in general. We don't have to throw out the baby just cause sometimes he's got some bathwater on him.

I do think the T misleading, however, in jtb.

Because JTB looks like a set of criteria and while we can check the justification and check the belief criteria we cannot check the T criterion except by looking at the J, it makes for a messy concept.

Yes, the T is meant to be metaphysical not an epistemological criterion. IOW it will not have been knowledge if we later figure out that it wasn't true.

But I think that since the three letters are not all of the same category, it's a bad way to frame the idea. And ungainly as it may be

I think a well J-ed B that is not falsified is a better abstract description of knowledge and more directly fits. That's what we work with in situ. WEll justified beliefs that are not, so far, falsified.

Of course that's off the topic of Gettier.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:50 am

If something is not entirely true, it does not mean it's entirely false. More importantly, if something is not entirely true, it does not mean it's useless.

The idea that JTB is a necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge is not entirely true (given specific definition of the word "justification") and that's what Edmnund Gettier showed. But it's not entirely false either since JTB still remains a necessary condition for knowledge.

Did Edmund Gettier (who's still alive and kicking) ever say that Plato's account of knowledge is entirely false?

If someone's poking holes in a theory, does that mean they are trying to "destroy" that theory i.e. to show that it's completely false and useless? I don't think so. So one must be aware not to presume too much.

KT wrote:I think a well J-ed B that is not falsified is a better abstract description of knowledge and more directly fits. That's what we work with in situ. WEll justified beliefs that are not, so far, falsified.


A well-justified belief that is not falsified can still be false.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4125
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:20 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:If something is not entirely true, it does not mean it's entirely false. More importantly, if something is not entirely true, it does not mean it's useless.
I agree.

The idea that JTB is a necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge is not entirely true (given specific definition of the word "justification") and that's what Edmnund Gettier showed. But it's not entirely false either since JTB still remains a necessary condition for knowledge.

Did Edmund Gettier (who's still alive and kicking) ever say that Plato's account of knowledge is entirely false?
Dunno.

If someone's poking holes in a theory, does that mean they are trying to "destroy" that theory i.e. to show that it's completely false and useless? I don't think so. So one must be aware not to presume too much.
Agreed.

KT wrote:I think a well J-ed B that is not falsified is a better abstract description of knowledge and more directly fits. That's what we work with in situ. WEll justified beliefs that are not, so far, falsified.


A well-justified belief that is not falsified can still be false.
Of course. But that's the position we are always in. I am trying to frame a theory of knowledge or criteria that are useful. To me adding in 'true' along with 'justified' doesn't give me anything to work with. I can only look at the justification. Here I am, a human with limited knowledge. I can look at the justification and evaluate it and think...that's very good. But I can't then go check the truth of the belief and think....oh, good, it's also true. I can only look at the justification and whether anything out there ruins that justificaiton - perhaps a clear counterexample - the black swan, whatever.

Now i know that the T is not intended as a criterion that we check off. But I think it makes JTB confused, because you do check off the justification and whether the person believes it. I think JB works better, with the proviso that nothing demonstrates it is false.

This is, in fact, how they work with knowledge in science. Does the evidence strongly support the hypothesis? There is no check where the scientists then check something else or use some other process to see if it is true. If something comes along and falsifies it later, then we find out that what we considered knowledge was not, or was only partially correct or correct in X conditions. Knowledge may always have to be revised.

There is no God's eye view that tells us that a belief is both very well justified and true. We just have the justification.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Meno_ » Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:12 pm

Revision stems from from a premonition, and premonition are vaguely connected in some measure to am original hypothesis.

Then, it's sense of justification. Only derived from a prior attempt at reverse justification .

When the apple fell on Newton, sure, the utility came much later on, it was realized at a.point which now days can enable to transcend temporal considerations , but then again , it's utilization not widely connected to it's
derived function.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6204
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Gettier

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:00 am

Faust, I think that Nietzsche and philosophers somewhat like him such as Anaximander, would hold that there is only one piece of true knowledge (e.g. "the world is will to power and nothing besides") and that all possible other knowledge is conditional on that, and thus never atomic.

Such a philosopher would not be interested in pointing out facts, rather he would reveal angles, perspectives, and, as Pedro said, make points.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Gettier

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:20 am

KT wrote:Now i know that the T is not intended as a criterion that we check off. But I think it makes JTB confused, because you do check off the justification and whether the person believes it. I think JB works better, with the proviso that nothing demonstrates it is false.

This is, in fact, how they work with knowledge in science. Does the evidence strongly support the hypothesis? There is no check where the scientists then check something else or use some other process to see if it is true. If something comes along and falsifies it later, then we find out that what we considered knowledge was not, or was only partially correct or correct in X conditions. Knowledge may always have to be revised.

There is no God's eye view that tells us that a belief is both very well justified and true. We just have the justification.


I think you miss the point. The point is to define (i.e. to verbally describe) the meaning of the word "knowledge". The question that is being asked is "What things (existent or non-existent) can be called by the name knowledge?" The question is not "How can we determine whether a given portion of reality can be called by the name knowledge?" That's a different question. It's a different question because it involves figuring out the content of the portion of reality of our interest. In fact, in order to be able to ask such a question one must first answer, even if unconsciously, the first question. For how can one determine whether a given portion of reality can be represented by some word if one doesn't know what that word means?
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4125
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:49 am

Exactly right.
Why an epistemology must be at once a verifiable ontology.

Why there cant be a difference between categories and notions.
Ultimately why there can only be one notion, if a notion is to be had at all.

Philosophy has thus always amounted in core-concepts like physis, eros, power, in terms of which man attempted to understand his own knowing.
For philosophers intuit that when they do not understand their own knowing they can not actually know what they are knowing, so absent such self-knowledge, all that presents itself as knowledge to the mind amounts to a mere scheme to keep it occupied and locked down in a pattern.

Therefore knowledge is power; whenever it is not, you're not actually knowing an existent being.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Gettier

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:47 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:I think you miss the point. The point is to define (i.e. to verbally describe) the meaning of the word "knowledge". The question that is being asked is "What things (existent or non-existent) can be called by the name knowledge?" The question is not "How can we determine whether a given portion of reality can be called by the name knowledge?" That's a different question. It's a different question because it involves figuring out the content of the portion of reality of our interest. In fact, in order to be able to ask such a question one must first answer, even if unconsciously, the first question. For how can one determine whether a given portion of reality can be represented by some word if one doesn't know what that word means?
And my point is precisely that the meaning you say is the point, is not really meaningful to

us.

It isn't really useful. So, I am treating, intentionally, the category with how we treat individual cases. I think it is misleading to have the category be jtb, since we cannot use jtb in specific cases, though we can use jb (that has not been falsified.) Of course I tend towards pragmatism, so, I would.

And jtb does get a carried over into individual cases, which I think leads to silliness. And, it seems to me, gettier is trying to find counterexamples on an individual case basis, to show that jtb is problematic. That is the context of the thread. Is jtb necessary and sufficient and focusing on Gettiers approach to seeing if it fails.

I am saying that it is problematic not because of problematic individual cases, but because of where we find ourselves in media res.

I did mention in one of my first posts in this thread that I understood T did not stand for a criterion, that is was a more metaphysical category here. Nevertheless I think it is problematic, precisely because of how jtb ends up being used and I think also the split between justification and truth in metaphysics. Again, coupled no doubt with my pragmatic approach.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:49 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Exactly right.
Why an epistemology must be at once a verifiable ontology.
.

What's the verifiable ontology of jtb.?
What ontologies does it rule out?
How did science move through a range of ontologies in the last 200 years if there has been a verifiable ontology (that is one) at the base of science and jtb? Or did science not follow jtb? Or something else
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Gettier

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 28, 2019 5:23 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Exactly right.
Why an epistemology must be at once a verifiable ontology.
.

What's the verifiable ontology of jtb.?
What ontologies does it rule out?

None, that I know of.

How did science move through a range of ontologies in the last 200 years if there has been a verifiable ontology (that is one) at the base of science and jtb? Or did science not follow jtb? Or something else

Science is not an ontology but a method.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9807
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]