Essay: The Gettier Problem: Challenging the Definition of Knowledge

There are cases where something is true, but someone believes in the truth for invalid reasons. The definition of these cases and all problems involving an element of truth, but the existence of belief for invalid reasons is called the Gettier problem (stanford.edu). These problems expose inconsistencies in the model for evaluating the justifications of knowledge to create belief as outlined by Plato. However, knowledge is traditionally defined as a justified true belief.

The concept of knowledge as a justified true belief can be traced to Plato. Plato proposed that for someone to believe in something, there has to be some sort of justification. Therefore, the definition of knowledge is a justified true belief (stanford.edu). The implication of this definition is that for one to accept a proposition as true, there has to be some level of acceptable justification for the proposition. For example, for one to believe that a proposition, P, is true, P must be true, the subject must believe that P is true, and the subject must have a justification for the belief. Therefore, knowledge is a function of a justification and a belief.

The Traditional Analysis of Knowledge

According to the traditional analysis of knowledge, three conditions must be met for a belief to be considered knowledge: truth, belief, and justification.

1. Truth: The proposition must be true. It is not possible to know something that is false.
2. Belief: The subject must believe the proposition. If the subject does not believe in the proposition, it cannot be said that the subject knows the proposition.
3. Justification: There must be sufficient justification for the belief. The justification is supposed to connect the belief to the truth in a reliable way.

These conditions have been widely accepted as the foundational criteria for knowledge. The idea is that these three components work together to ensure that a belief qualifies as knowledge.

The Gettier Problem

However, according to the Gettier problems, it is possible for P to be true even where the justifications are not valid. For example, Gettier used scenarios where individuals have beliefs that are true and justified, but the justifications are flawed due to luck or coincidence (stanford.edu). These scenarios show that the traditional conditions for knowledge—truth, belief, and justification—are not sufficient to account for all cases of knowledge.

Consider the example of Jane believing that Mary owns a Ford. Jane’s belief meets two conditions of knowledge as a true belief because the belief is true, and Jane believes that it is true. However, Jane’s justification for her belief is invalid because it relies on a coincidence or misleading information. For example, Jane might have seen Mary driving a Ford car, but Mary might have borrowed the car from someone else. Despite Jane’s belief being true and justified, the justification is based on incorrect reasoning or misleading evidence.

The Role of Justification

The illustration shows that the aspect of justification is not a necessary part of the definition of knowledge because it is possible for the argument to be flawed. For example, the luck involved in the justification does not change the status of the truth because the fact that Mary owns the car remains a valid truth that can be justified by other means (stanford.edu). This challenges the traditional analysis by suggesting that a belief can be true and justified, yet still not qualify as knowledge due to the flawed nature of the justification.

The implication of the Gettier problem is that the conditions proposed by Plato are necessary conditions but not necessarily sufficient. For example, for something to be true, the conditions are necessary in the definition of a problem. In addition, all logical people have a rationale for having a belief, even where the rationale is not valid (stanford.edu). For example, in matters of faith, most people believe in supernatural beings without any sort of empirical proof. This shows that belief and justification can exist even in the absence of logical or empirical evidence.

Responses to the Gettier Problem

The Gettier problem has prompted various responses and attempts to refine the definition of knowledge. Philosophers have proposed several solutions to address the shortcomings identified by Gettier.

1. No False Lemmas: One response is the “no false lemmas” approach, which adds a fourth condition to the traditional analysis of knowledge. This condition states that the justification for the belief must not involve any false premises. While this approach aims to eliminate cases where justified beliefs are based on false information, it has been argued that it still does not fully resolve the Gettier problem.
2. Reliabilism: Another response is reliabilism, which suggests that knowledge is justified true belief produced by a reliable cognitive process. Reliabilism shifts the focus from the justification itself to the reliability of the process that generates the belief. This approach addresses some Gettier cases by emphasizing the importance of the belief-forming process, but it has its own set of challenges and counterexamples.
3. Causal Theory of Knowledge: The causal theory of knowledge posits that knowledge is a true belief that is causally connected to the fact it represents. According to this view, for a belief to count as knowledge, there must be an appropriate causal link between the belief and the truth. While this theory accounts for the causal connection between belief and truth, it may not address all Gettier-like scenarios.
4. Virtue Epistemology: Virtue epistemology focuses on the intellectual virtues of the believer, such as open-mindedness, intellectual courage, and intellectual honesty. This approach suggests that knowledge is a true belief formed through the exercise of intellectual virtues. Virtue epistemology emphasizes the role of the believer’s character and cognitive abilities in forming knowledge, providing a more holistic account of knowledge acquisition.

Implications of the Gettier Problem

The Gettier problem has significant implications for epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It challenges the foundational assumptions about what constitutes knowledge and prompts a reevaluation of the criteria for knowledge. By exposing the limitations of the traditional analysis of knowledge, the Gettier problem has led to a richer and more nuanced understanding of epistemic concepts.

Moreover, the Gettier problem highlights the complexity of human cognition and the challenges of defining knowledge in a rigorous and comprehensive manner. It underscores the need for continuous philosophical inquiry and refinement of epistemological theories. The ongoing debate and exploration of knowledge in the light of the Gettier problem demonstrate the dynamic and evolving nature of philosophical inquiry.

Conclusion

The Gettier problem challenges the traditional definition of knowledge as a justified true belief by presenting scenarios where beliefs are true and justified, yet still not knowledge due to flawed justifications. This problem has exposed the need for additional criteria or alternative theories to adequately define knowledge. Various responses, including the no false lemmas approach, reliabilism, the causal theory of knowledge, and virtue epistemology, have been proposed to address the issues raised by Gettier.

By critically examining these responses and their implications, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in defining knowledge. The Gettier problem continues to be a central topic in epistemology, driving philosophical inquiry and contributing to the ongoing development of theories about knowledge. Ultimately, this exploration enriches our understanding of what it means to know something and the nature of human cognition.