Gettier's Problem - Essay Example

Defining knowledge has been a topmost issue in the field of epistemology since the ages. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is mainly associated with the discussion about the concept of knowledge (Ichikawa). The problem of defining knowledge has been discussed by the ancient philosophers like Socrates to the contemporary philosophers around the world. In 1963, ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ by Edmund, Gettier was published in the journal, Analysis (Turri 1). In this 3-paged paper, Gettier challenged the classic theory of knowledge which defines knowledge as ‘justified true belief’. Gettier presented two cases in which subjects achieve the justified true belief, but fail to recognize it, proving that knowledge varies from justified true belief. Consequently, the cases refute the classic definition of knowledge, generating the ‘Gettier’s problem’ to satisfy the exact definition of knowledge (Gettier 121-123).

According to the traditional theory, justified true belief (JTB) is knowledge when three necessary and fundamental conditions are fulfilled. In other words, “S knows P if and only if (iff) – 1. P is true; 2. S believes P, and 3. S is justified in believing P” (Gettier 121). With the help of two cases, Gettier exposed the flaws of the definition. In his first example, Gettier showed that Smith had a justified belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get a job. Smith had evidence aboofut ten coins in Jones’ pocket and hence, he believed that Jones would get a job. But he was unaware of the ten coins in his pocket. Based on this belief, Smith got the job instead of Jones. Here, though Smith’s justified belief was true, it was based on a false assumption, hence one can’t say that Smith had knowledge (Gettier 121-122). Similarly, in another example, Smith had strong evidence about Jones’ ownership of a Ford car. Also, Smith had another friend, Brown, whose location was unknown to Smith. Based on this belief, Smith concluded three outcomes- “1. Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Boston; 2. Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Barcelona; 3. Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Brest-Litovsk” (Gettier 122). Gettier further revealed the fact that the car was rented by Jones and Brown was located in Barcelona. In this case, though the second conclusion was true, Smith didn’t know that it was true. Consequently, it violated the first condition of JTB, leading to the conclusion that Smith had no knowledge (Gettier 122-123). In a way, Gettier’s examples created Gettier’s problem which showed that the traditional three conditions are not capable of satisfying the definition of knowledge.

Since the late 1960s, many theories and solutions have been proposed by philosophers and experts in the field of epistemology, but none of them could provide flawless solutions. According to Gilbert Harman’s solution, interpretation from false belief leads to the preclusion of knowledge to Getter’s subjects (Turri 2). In Gettier’s Ford case, the reasoning about someone’s ownership of Ford in the office proceeds through a false belief that Jones owns the car. So according to Harman’s solution, knowledge is justified by true belief (JTB) where the interpretation of belief doesn’t proceed through a false step (Turri 2). But, suppose Jones was cleaning a Ford and whistling the Ford advertising jingle. Based on it, Smith concluded that someone in the office was waxing a Ford and whistling the Ford jingle. This belief was true. Further, on the basis of justified belief, Smith concluded that someone in the office owned a Ford which is true as Sam, a new employer, owned that car. Though here belief didn’t proceed through any false steps, it failed to consider as knowledge (Turri 2). Similar to Harman, various other solutions such as Zagzebski’s solution, Greco’s solution, Sosa’s solution, fallibilism, and contextualism tried to respond to the problem by presenting their own theories, modifying the present conditions, replacing or adding new conditions to it (Ichikawa; Turri 2-4). The failure of such theories was further analyzed by Linda Zagzebski in 1994. According to her, “any solution of the form JTB (justified true belief)+ X, where X is a condition or number of conditions logically distinct from belief, truth, and justification, would be prone to Gettier-type counter-cases” (Ichikawa).

According to my solution to Gettier’s problem, knowledge is a comprehensive belief. The Getteir’s subject didn’t believe comprehensively, hence they didn’t know. Though his subject managed to succeed in their sense, their belief didn’t reveal their knowledge. Outcomes are often affected by surroundings, processes, and events. For instance, the knowledge about the ability of microwaves to boil water can be presented in two beliefs. One with an ordinary case of boiling water in the microwave and the other due to the fire caused by short-circuits during the process. In both cases, the outcome is the same, i.e., boiling water, but only the first case manifests the knowledge, while the second is the case of ‘pure luck’. Also, it is possible to achieve knowledge by interpreting false beliefs. It is further explained by John Turri with the help of various examples. According to him, even if we assume the approximate value of pi to be 3.14, it is enough to know that a 15-diameter circle has a greater area than a 10-diameter circle (Turri 8).

In a way, defining knowledge has been a crucial problem for many years. Many efforts were done to solve Gettier’s problem, but none of the solutions or theory is immune to its counterexamples. Hence, the significant impact of Gettier’s problem on modern epistemology can’t be denied.