Is propositional knowledge best defined as justified true belief?

25 mark Essay

Introduction:

https://quizlet.com/287513720/defining-knowledge-flash-cards/
https://prezi.com/0oyxfwsrluj2/is-jtb-knowledge/

Start by briefly explaining there is a debate about how to define knowledge, and ideally how propositional
knowledge is different to ability and acquaintance knowledge (very briefly). Say that the debate revolves
mainly around Gettier and then put forward your view after we have been through all the alternative
definitions (i.e. it is best defined as JTB, or TB + no false lemmas etc depending on what you think best fits
the examples and our use of the term more broadly).

Explain the tripartite definition:

Make sure to spell out why the three things are individually necessary and jointly sufficient. Also ensure
you cover why the J is supposed to rule out luck, with an example to illustrate this.

If you can write a lot you could explain why some of the conditions may not be necessary:
This is where you might talk about examples that seem to show we could know something without
believing it, or that there are different interpretations of truth and justification.
The central objection: Explain Gettier’s argument the JTB is not sufficient for knowledge:
Outline Gettier’s case against the tripartite definition, making sure to use at least one clear example to
show why JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.

Explain the infallibilist response (and evaluate it):

Show how adding the extra condition of infallibilism is supposed to eliminate Gettier cases from being
knowledge to arrive at a definition of knowledge which aims to show JTB + I is sufficient for knowledge.
Then discuss whether this is in fact a more convincing or intuitive definition – does it fit how we usually use
the term, and how might it overcome any problems it faces?

Explain the no false lemmas response (and evaluate it):

Show how adding the extra condition of no false lemmas is supposed to eliminate Gettier cases from being
knowledge to arrive at a definition of knowledge which aims to show JTB + NFL is sufficient for knowledge.
Then discuss whether this is in fact a more convincing or intuitive definition – does it fit how we usually use
the term, and how might it overcome any problems it faces? Is it better than infallibilism?

A lemma is a premise that is assumed to be true and is used to justify knowledge.

No false lemmas adds a fourth condition.
It guarantees that the belief cannot be founded upon a false assumption of which was unaware
of.
It becomes J+T+B+N.
P is true, You believe that P, Your belief that P is justified, You did not infer P from anything
false.

A lemma is an assertion that knowledge is right and that knowledge can be justified.
There is a fourth criterion with no false lemmas.
It means that the decision can't be based on a misconceived belief.
 It is converted into J+T+B+N.
P is real, you assume P is justified, you did not deduce P from something wrong. P is
real.
Too strict- policeman has a collection of evidence against suspect- one piece of evidence not
true- this is therefore not knowledge and suspect shouldn't be prosecuted (even if guilty).
Too weak- someone driving through countryside of fake barns- looks at barn and thinks he
knows it's a barn- doesn't know there are lots of fake barns in the town- he is in fact looking at
real barn- belief is justified and true but there are good grounds to disbelieve it- accidental truths
cannot be held as knowledge.
So stringent a cop requires a set of evidence-one piece of proof is not right-because this
is not information and the suspect must not be charged.
Too naive – anyone who drives through the fields with false barns – looks at the barn
and believes they know the barn – may not realise that in the city there are so many
fake barns-they are really looking at real barns – assumption that is justified and true;
nevertheless, there are reasonable grounds for scepticism.
Note: there are lots of responses! A decent essay here would deal with at least two in
detail – but for top marks you probably want more.

Explain the reliabilist response (and evaluate it):

Show how dropping “justification” (which usually is associated with internal reasons) and adding the extra
condition of “arrived at by a reliable process” is supposed to eliminate Gettier cases from being knowledge
to arrive at a definition of knowledge which aims to show JTB + R is sufficient for knowledge. Then discuss
whether this is in fact a more convincing or intuitive definition – does it fit how we usually use the term,
and how might it overcome any problems it faces? Is it better than the previous responses?

The belief must be undoubtable. The justification must be so strong that the truth is guaranteed. In other
words, you can only have knowledge if the belief is infallible. 2+2=4, would be considered knowledge,
because the justification is strong enough to make the truth guaranteed.

The conviction must be simple. It must be so strongly established that the truth is
secured. In other words, only if the confidence is faultless can you have information. 2 +
2=4, knowledge will be considered, because it is sufficiently powerful to ensure the
truth.
t appears to be too strict- It limits our knowledge to logical truths such as a truth like 'a triangle
has three sides' and truths which we can establish with careful reasoning such as 'I exist.'

t seems too rigorous-It restricts our knowledge to logical truths like "a triangle has three
sides," which can be formed with careful thinking like "I exist."

Explain the virtue epistemology response (and evaluate it):

Show how dropping “justification” (which usually is associated with internal reasons) and adding the extra
condition of “arrived at virtuously” is supposed to eliminate Gettier cases from being knowledge to arrive
at a definition of knowledge which aims to show JTB + V is sufficient for knowledge. Then discuss whether
this is in fact a more convincing or intuitive definition – does it fit how we usually use the term, and how
might it overcome any problems it faces? Is it better than the previous responses?
 Reliability requires a consistent mechanism for the creation of belief.
Reliability substitutes for argument-R+B+T = K.
It encourages children and animals to live, even though they don't live about their
values.
P is real, S thinks P, S is the source of a trustworthy operation. P is correct.
Reliability Clarify

Crtics

The overall or particular essence of a method to rectify information is not clear. How
accurate (100%-0%) does it have to be?
While anything is highly probable to be accurate-information can not still be
represented before the ticket is drawn.

Conclusion:
Sum up your overall answer on what you think the best definition is and try to state a strong reason why it
overcomes Gettier cases better than other responses.
Convergence involves a clear belief-building process.
Argument-R+B+T substitution for reliability = K.
It promotes living for children and animals, even if they don't abide by their beliefs.
P is true, S thinks P, S is the source of a successful transaction. P is false. P is false.
Clarification of reliability

Heartfelt

There is no simple overall or basic nature of a system for rectifying knowledge. How specific would this
be (100 percent -0%)?
While it is very likely to be correct, it can not be seen until the ticket is drawn.