1 Way For Attaining Knowledge

Mr. Gettier realized there was a problem with the original Justified True Belief (JTB) account we discussed a few blog posts ago, here is a link to read more. This post we will learn about the steps Mr. Gettier took to solve the problem for justified true beliefs. This allows a person to know the proper process for attaining knowledge. By using the defeasibility approach mixed with a redundancy issue to finally present an account to form knowledge.

To attain knowledge while getting around Mr. Gettier's problem we need a fourth condition, which is referred to in the book as the defeasibility approach. We provided information and an example of the defeasibility approach in our last post in regards to relationships. A defeasibility approach essentially keeps an argument true, so long as there are no propositions to factually defeat the total system of evidence.

As satisfying as the defeasibility approach/condition is a JTB account is now redundant. In the sense these four conditions: truth, belief, justification and defeasibilty are conflicting. The conditions on their own hold, but the truth condition and the defeasibility condition clash, making the defeasibility condition redundant. For the reason that a defeasibility approach entails the truth condition.

Mr. Gettier fixes this and amends the previous justified true belief account that was presented at the beginning of the book. He did this by removing the truth condition allowing an account to remain a JTB account, so long as:

S knows that p if and only if
(1) S believes that p;
(2) S has justifying evidence for believing that p;
(3) there is no proposition d that factually defeats S's evidence for believing that p.

Allowing us to remove the truth condition well satisfying a justified true belief.

Solving the Gettier problem by presenting a defeasibility condition for a JTB, and a satisfied process for attaining a wealth of knowledge. Which, makes sense as an argument can remain true one second and turn out to be false with new discovered evidence the next. Showing us one way for a justified true belief to become knowledge.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you. ISBN 0-13-037095-9

Reference:
Steup, Matthias. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. Print.

Another Day of Relationships

Defeasibility approach is based on the idea that the full range of relevant facts must not defeat-- in the factual sense of the word -- S's justification for believing that p. (Matthias, 1996)

 This approach goes back to the Gettier Problem, stating all three conditions (true, belief and justified) are not sufficient enough to turn evidence into knowledge. Hence, the defeasibility approach is aimed to turn evidence into knowledge by presenting a fact that aids a system of evidence to factually be a true justified belief. So let's look at an example.

(1) S has two behaviors.
(2) S behaves with great potential when he/she is using supplements.
(3) S behaves like a regular person when he/she is in a sober state of mind.
(4) S ultimately, has one character.
(5) S should be liked for who she/he is rather than what they can become.
(6) If, S is liked for what they can become instead of who she/he is than, S2 doesn't deserve S anyway.

With this system of supporting evidence we can see that S has more than one behavior, a character and is who they ought to be. (5) mentions that S should be liked for who she/he is rather than what they can become. Which, is true to many extents, but for the purposes of this post is a belief that many have in regards to relationships. And, (6) is the defeasible approach, by adding a fact that can defeat S2 reasoning for liking S. However, if S is liked for who they are as a person than none of this matters in the first place and the relationship can live to see another day.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you. ISBN 0-13-037095-9

Reference:
Steup, Matthias. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. Print.

Epistemizing Potential

"Cogito Ergo Sum", translates into "I think, therefore I am"(Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy). This statement provides your conscience with evidence and facts to prove you exist, making you a reliable authority.  While at the same time giving you an example for two forms of defeat ultimately influencing epistemological systems. With this said, here are two definitions, factual and justificational defeat. We need to know these two definitions for the remainder of this post as they affect supported evidence in an epistemizing way.

Justificational Defeat (defeating beliefs with evidence)

d evidentially defeats S's justification for believing that p if and only if (i) S has evidence e for believing that p; (ii) S has also evidence e' for a proposition d that defeats e as evidence for p.

Factual Defeat (defeating beliefs with facts)

d factually defeats S's justification for believing that p if an only if (i) S has evidence e for believing that p; (ii) there is a proposition d such that d is true, S does not have evidence for d, and d defeats e as evidence for p.

Non-Epistemizing

 True belief is not knowledge when non-epistemizing justification occurs. Facts defeating a system of beliefs signifies this sort of defeat. When evidential defeat happens, a belief is defeated. Only factually defeating a system of beliefs allows a system to be known as non-epistemizing justification.

Epistemizing Potential

When an entire system of supported evidence is undefeated, meaning there is no more evidence or facts to defeat p. The system of true beliefs have epistemizing potential. This grants the system of beliefs to than turn into knowledge. 

When a system of elements can remain factually and justificationally undefeated we can say true beliefs have epistemizing potential, allowing us to know with confidence. Almost always we are not fully in a position to know p due to hidden facts, Socrates paradox knew only one thing, which was nothing. However, we do know Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" proved our existence as a thinking thing; resulting in a system of elements with epistemizing potential. 

* * *

Go ahead and leave comments below to help me, help you. Note: I use examples from the book and from my own experience.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you. ISBN 0-13-037095-9

Reference:
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue, 199. Print.