refuted widely through Reliabilism and Gettier Cases, both of which have highly contrasting views and opinions on the aspect of knowledge particularly in the context of ‘justified true belief’. This paper attempts to analyze, discuss and evaluate the various arguments put forward by both these branches and assess how the concept of ‘justified true belief’ is refuted by Gettier case, and thereby fails to solve the counter problems posed by the same.
There are various branches of reliabilism, all of which are centered on the single notion of ‘justified true belief’ with regard to explanations regarding knowledge. Some of such theories are discussed hereunder, to explain how it helps or fails in providing logical solution to the problems raised by Gettier.
Reliabilism is one of the most widely used and debated theories in contemporary epistemology of which process reliabilism is one such aspect which makes the study of processes that lead to and upholds such beliefs, extremely crucial. The basic idea propagated by process reliabilism theories is that:
Reliabilism, on the other hand, in general is an approach which stresses on the importance of formation of truth, through a specific method, or a belief-forming process. The concept of reliability pertains to theories of knowledge such as the tracking theory, which lays greater significance on extracting or seeking truth. In a narrow definition of reliabilism it refers to process reliabilism that is used to seek justification for the knowledge held.
P (here, it refers to a proposition) knows that the sky is blue, if and only if P is true, one may believe that P is true, and one believes that P is true because P has arrived at that knowledge / belief that the sky is blue, through some reliable process.
This theory was refuted by Gettier in the Gettier problem, whereby the concept of ‘knowledge’ as it pertains to ‘justified true belief’ was challenged. The Gettier problem or the Gettier cases