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.

Loop Hole

A Loophole is an uncertainty or inability to deal with a situation in the law or a set of rules. 

There is a loophole for everything these days whether they are used or not, they exist. Unbeknownst to us until a situation is presented to figure it out. Whatever "it" may be a problem arises with truths, beliefs and justifications as conditions of knowledge. Gettier's problem states that the three conditions (truths, beliefs and justifications) are not sufficient for a JTB of knowledge; so let's examine theories for each one. 

The truth theories consist of three approaches correspondence, verificationism and pragmatism. All of which, fail for there own reasons dealing with each theories variables. Stemming from questions, experience and potential infinite's. 


Correspondence Theory:
P is true iff, it corresponds with the fact that P. This theory has a circular argument: what is a fact? and what does it take for a fact to correspond to belief. Moreover, a fact is hard to determine without mentioning the truths of the matter. 

Verificationism: 
P is true iff, it is an instance of (idealized) rational acceptability. Verificationism is hard to justify, typically leading to a false belief. Meaning this theory will be an uphill battle to preclude a belief to be possible. Mostly for the fact that each person dealing with P would have to form an opinion based on their education, experience and training. 

Pragmatism: 
P is true iff, it is useful. Pragmatism doesn't hold because it is easy to imagine true beliefs that are not useful at all. Therefore, true beliefs can fail to be useful, and useful beliefs can fail to be true.  

A belief is the attitude a person can have toward P a proposition. For example lets say P = God exists
On one side of the fence believer would be a Theist, in the sense that a theist would believe God exist forming the belief that P is true. The fence would be an Agnostic as judgement is suspended forming an indifferent belief. On the other side of the fence would be the disbeliever known as the Atheist will take P to be false. However, all of these believers are forming a belief to believe, disbelieve or suspend a belief.  Furthermore, occurent beliefs are also important to this matter as they are presently before our mind as a standing (3+3=6) or newly formed belief (I believe in behavior P's domino effect). These beliefs are justified in certain degrees, which we will delve into at a later time. 

Justification seems easy, but it can be a little tricky. The two forms are justified true beliefs (lucky truths) and unjustified true beliefs (lucky guess). A lucky truth is a true belief that is not a lucky guess. S's belief that P is a lucky guess iff, (i) P is true; (2) S believes that P; (3) S has no evidence that P is true. These forms of justification are tricky because evidence or reason has to be presented to convince others, including yourself. Also for the reason that, a belief can have the property of being completely justified without having to show or explain the belief's justification, or we have no idea how to explain a belief yet, the belief is still justified. i.e. reading a blog post and existing.

Making the truth theories, beliefs and justifications fail on every level. This is an under rated phenomenon that has metaphysically created loop holes for laws, knowledge and anything else attempting to prove a point.  

Mr. Gettier succeeded to note the problems with each condition and devised a solution that comes later in the book after further developing evidence for justification. 
Since, these three conditions will not suffice for knowledge to be a justified true belief. He had to solve a problem, that is to say, what kind of condition can prevent a true belief from being a lucky truth? 

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.