Consul wrote: ↑June 20th, 2021, 10:08 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 20th, 2021, 2:33 pmIn conclusion, Gettier's problem only works assuming a very stupid person making false inferences. Stupidity cannot be the basis for studying epistemology.
If you aren't convinced by Gettier's original examples, maybe the following one will convince you of the insufficiency of the JTB definition of "knowledge", which I just thought up (and which is analogous to the sheep-in-the-meadow case):
Bill looks through the window of a restaurant and sees a man sitting at a table who looks exactly like his friend Jim; so he believes that Jim is in that restaurant. However, the man he sees isn't Jim but Jim's identical twin brother Tim, whose existence is unknown to Bill, because he never met Tim and (for some strange reason) Jim never told him that he has an identical twin brother. As it happens, Jim is in the restaurant too, sitting at another table that Bill cannot see through the window. So Bill's belief that Jim is in the restaurant is both justified by his seeing someone who looks exactly like Jim and true owing to Jim's presence in the restaurant. But does he really know that Jim is in the restaurant? No, he arguably doesn't; and if he doesn't, then justified true belief isn't the same as knowledge.
The JTB definition requires that
p is true, Bill believes that
p, and Bill is justified in believing that
p. But what is
p in this case? It is not that Jim is in that restaurant, but that the man BIll is seeing is Jim, which is not true, therefore even though Bill seems justified in believing that the man he is seeing is Jim, this does not constitute knowledge of Jim being the person he is seeing. In a second instance, Bill's false belief creates the conditions for having another belief: that Jim is in the restaurant, but evidently this means the person that Bill is confusing as Jim being seen in the restaurant, which is false. The fact that the real Jim (not being seen by Bill) is by mere chance in the restaurant, unknown to Bill, does not constitute for Bill knowledge of Jim being in the restaurant.
Do you have anything to say on my response to the specific case presented by Gettier?