Introduction to Gettier: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Introduction to Gettier » Introduction to Gettier

Page: 1 2 3 4

Introduction to Gettier

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 03/26/04 - 06:10 AM:	#1
Edmund Gettier argued (in 1961, I believe) that the classic definition of knowledge as true justified belief may give the necessary conditions for knowledge, but not sufficient conditions. The following is not one of Gettier's counterexamples to the classic definition, but it makes the point, I think. Suppose a man walks into his office one morning and notices that the clock on the wall reads 9 A.M. He also knows that his employer is a stickler for the correct time, and each afternoon has a well-known clock repairer check to see that the clock is in perfect working order. And, suppose, too, that it is 9 A.M. so the clock is correct. So, the man's belief that it is 9 A.M. is true, it is justified. So does the man know it is 9 A.M. According to the classic definition, he does. But, now, let me add this bit of information: unknown to the man, last evening, the clock happened to stop at exactly 9 P.M. Does the office worker know, then, that it is 9 A.M. ? Gettier would say, obviously not. How about you? And just as important, can the classic definition be rectified? Do we require some fourth condition of knowledge?

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 03/26/04 - 09:53 AM:	#2
Of course the worker knows it’s 9am, no matter where the clock hands are.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 03/26/04 - 11:06 AM:	#3
Gassendi wrote: Edmund Gettier argued (in 1961, I believe) that the classic definition of knowledge as true justified belief may give the necessary conditions for knowledge, but not sufficient conditions. The following is not one of Gettier's counterexamples to the classic definition, but it makes the point, I think. Suppose a man walks into his office one morning and notices that the clock on the wall reads 9 A.M. He also knows that his employer is a stickler for the correct time, and each afternoon has a well-known clock repairer check to see that the clock is in perfect working order. And, suppose, too, that it is 9 A.M. so the clock is correct. So, the man's belief that it is 9 A.M. is true, it is justified. So does the man know it is 9 A.M. According to the classic definition, he does. But, now, let me add this bit of information: unknown to the man, last evening, the clock happened to stop at exactly 9 P.M. Does the office worker know, then, that it is 9 A.M. ? Gettier would say, obviously not. How about you? And just as important, can the classic definition be rectified? Do we require some fourth condition of knowledge? Rather than seeking a fourth element for the standard tripartite definition, perhaps we should concede that we do not have knowledge, but concede only with respect to Gettier-type situations and counterexamples. So if the clock was indeed functioning, then the office worker has knowledge of the time pursuant to the standard definition. If the clock was not functioning, then the worker did not have knowledge notwithstanding the standard definition. Darkcrow wrote: Of course the worker knows it’s 9am, no matter where the clock hands are. How does he know if the clock isn't working?
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 03/26/04 - 11:29 AM:	#4
TecnoTut wrote: How does he know if the clock isn't working? The clock need not be working at all---Knowing his employer is a stickler for the correct time and having allowed for his travel time, he knows when he will arrive at work, or whether something happened that affected his travel time.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 03/26/04 - 01:04 PM:	#5
darkcrow wrote: The clock need not be working at all---Knowing his employer is a stickler for the correct time and having allowed for his travel time, he knows when he will arrive at work, or whether something happened that affected his travel time. _______________________________________ But that's not the point, DC. He doesn't know it by the clock.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 03/26/04 - 01:07 PM:	#6
[QUOTE=TecnoTut]Rather than seeking a fourth element for the standard tripartite definition, perhaps we should concede that we do not have knowledge, but concede only with respect to Gettier-type situations and counterexamples. So if the clock was indeed functioning, then the office worker has knowledge of the time pursuant to the standard definition. If the clock was not functioning, then the worker did not have knowledge notwithstanding the standard definition. ________________________________________ But that means that although he has TJB, he doesn't know. How can we make an exception for Gettier-type cases by fiat?

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 03/26/04 - 01:15 PM:	#7
Darkcrow wrote: The clock need not be working at all---Knowing his employer is a stickler for the correct time and having allowed for his travel time, he knows when he will arrive at work, or whether something happened that affected his travel time. There is no employer - so let's just say you're the sole proprietor. Nor is there anything else around you that indicates the time. Now, it really is 9:00 a.m., and you are justified in believing it's 9:00 a.m. because looking at the clock has always been reliable. So, do you know what time it is? Gettier and I say "no." Despite the fact that you are justified at looking at clocks to tell the time, and despite the fact that it really is 9:00 a.m., you do not have knowledge that it's 9:00 a.m. Here's a Gettier counter-example I created: you are the bank's security guard, and there is a security camera recording everything that happens in front of the vault's door. You see what the camera sees on televison monitors. But what you don't know is that when you went to the restroom for a few minutes, a thief walked into the bank and covered the camera's lens with a picture of vault's door so that when someone looks at the monitors all one sees is a picture of the vault, but not the real vault being broken into. Let's say the thief stole the money in the vault, and has already fled but, nevertheless, left the picture of the vault on the camera. When you finally return from the restrooms, you look at the monitors to see if everything is fine. But despite the fact that no one is breaking into the vault, and that looking at the monitors justifiably informs you whether someone is breaking into the vault or not, we should not say that you know that no one is breaking into the vault right now (because the picture of the vault remains on the camera lens).
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 03/26/04 - 01:24 PM:	#8
Gassendi wrote: But that means that although he has TJB, he doesn't know. How can we make an exception for Gettier-type cases by fiat? I do not know if it is so much by fiat as it is by the lack of satisfactory replies to Gettier.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 03/26/04 - 01:31 PM:	#9
TecnoTut wrote: I do not know if it is so much by fiat as it is by the lack of satisfactory replies to Gettier. ________________________________________ What I once tried to do is to argue that in Gettier-cases, justification fails because the premises of the justification are false. But it wasn't particularly successful because there are Gettier-cases in which the justification is not false.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11799

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 03/26/04 - 01:44 PM:	#10
Here's my analysis of it: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=48 . Note Josh's discussion of entailments there. I tend to agree with Josh that Gettier's entailments are imaginary ones rather than true entailments. My problem with the justified true belief theory is that it's redundant and makes it easy for people (read: externalists) to cheat due to the "true" condition. Truth is the outcome of knowledge, not a precondition you can stick in. You cannot approach the question of if something is known by checking if it is true, because that's just chasing your own tail. When we ask if something is known we're asking if it's true, so it makes no sense to have truth be one of the conditions for determining if the thing is known. So, I say knowledge is actually just justified belief. As far as how much justification is needed, that depends on if you're willing to be a fallibalist. For all practical purposes in every day life we act as fallibalists, so we don't need full justification since we admit that just because we know something doesn't mean we couldn't be wrong. If on the other hand we demand absolute knowledge as Cartesian types do, well, we'll need absolute justification -- which Gettier's counterexamples clearly fail to provide. Gettier is just attempting a bait and switch, telling us to use our everyday life fallibalist level of justification and then then acting as though he's surprised that this doesn't yield infallible knowledge.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.