What is the 'Gettier Problem'? [Illustrated]

If you’re familiar with philosophy, you may have heard of the ‘Gettier problem’ - a challenge to the orthodox JTB account of what constitutes knowledge. If not, then once more you have come to the right place! This video will outline the rough origins of the JTB argument, and then explain how the Gettier problem is such an issue for it. Enjoy!
In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower (Proust)
www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-Young...
A Picture of Dorian Gray (Wilde)
www.amazon.co.uk/Picture-Dori...
What is this thing called ‘Knowledge’? (Pritchard)
www.amazon.co.uk/What-this-th...
Meno (Plato)
www.amazon.co.uk/Plato-Dialog...
Philosophical Explanations (Nozick)
www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophica...
Voyage of the Dawn Treader (C.S. Lewis)
www.amazon.co.uk/Voyage-Dawn-...
Walden (Thoreau)
www.amazon.co.uk/Walden-Civil...
Miles
[Music: AShamaluevMusic, • Cinematic Documentary ... ]

[@kartikkalia01]

I can't say this is underrated because not much people will actually get this content. But the ones who does, will appreciate it to the fullest. Amazing explanation ❤️

[@magorzatagoliszewska8090]

amazing explanation. thank you so much!!!

[@efraingarcia9800]

Since you can't know the future, it would seem that you cannot have a JTB, at least to Goldman's point.. To a lesser degree this seems to be the case for the past as well.

[@tajosman6258]

Rob fogel’s book name?

[@AdrienLegendre]

I like the 4th condition.

[@icyflame8420]

What was the software you used?

[@darksydeeee]

Who's got the job now Smith or Jones ?

[@robertkiss7525]

Linda: "everything must be doubted" is true. Why? Because the number of logical spacies is infinity. Every fact called knowledge just for a moment. It means, the knowledge is in permanent changing. There isn't any "Gettier problem" if we supposed every true sentence of Platon is just a second is true. There isn't any "Gettier problem" if the time is existing.

[@robertkiss7525]

You would understand it, when I will explain the "Socrates problem". During explain the "Socrates problem" you have the proof of the difference between the "abstract logic" and "practical logic". This is a part of the proof of the "Prokopf approach" (=new philosophy) 3rd rule (about logical spacies). Socrates problem: the "if A=B, and B=C, then A=C is provable only in the perfect logical space, wich one we cannot create, only approach it."

[@huz.4028]

Can you paraphrase how Goldman's proposal solved Gettier Problem?

[@ThePolymathsParadise]

Sure! So take for instance a Gettier case where you see one of your colleagues, Ben, arrive to work in a black Porsche one day. You form the “justified” true belief that: ‘one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche’. However what you don’t know is that Ben only rents it, and does not actually own the car. Luckily though, another colleague of yours, Jane, happens to own a black Porsche - therefore making your belief true, without you knowing. Goldman would say that in order for the belief ‘one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche’ to be knowledge here: [1] You must hold the belief (which you do) [2] The belief must be true (which it is) [3] The belief must be justified (here is where Goldman gets more specific. In order to be justified, the justification must be “appropriately causal” to the truth of the belief. Nothing about Ben renting a Porsche makes it true that Jane owns a Porsche. Nothing about Ben renting a Porsche influences the truth of the belief, in other words. In order for the true belief ‘one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche’ to be knowledge, its justification must be ‘Jane is a colleague of mine and Jane owns of a black Porsche’ - insofar as it is this belief that causes the belief to be true) [4] The agent must be able to mentally construct a causal chain, and think in such a way “It is true that one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche, and the thing that makes this true is Jane being my colleague and her owning a black Porsche” (in a way it’s a formal requirement for the subject to recognise the causal relevance of the justification). Some criticise this approach, saying condition [4] looks fairly similar to [3]. Another common objection is that we still need to work out how a causally “appropriate” differs from a causally “inappropriate” justification. A lot of people, on the other hand, rather like Goldman’s response. Hope this helped!

[@huz.4028]

Thank you very much. I understand it now. Stay blessed

[@ranro7371]

@@ThePolymathsParadise Didn't Socrates have a better argument than Gettier in Theaetetus? afair He criticized Euclid for saying justified true belief is knowledge, not confirm it or agree with it.

[@John-lf3xf]

@@ThePolymathsParadise Yay. Instead of justified true belief. We have truly justified true belief.

[@KonradTamas]

To me as a noob it illustrates, that is best to make sure you have a good "seed" to generate a Replica of Reality in your head from, and it is crucial to make sure, that you followed a causal path to construct it. ( physics is causal, everything is cause and effect ) This process is still not perfect, but this method has probably the highest success rate. - Its good to check how you arrived to a conclusion, because if you arrived at it for the wrong reason, next time you cant rely on this thought pattern, or you have a high chance for something to go wrong.. So maximize the congruence between Reality and the Mental Model in your head, by double checking the validity of the source of your information.

[@stevendelgado5654]

Is like an endurance runner when the mind heart rhythm is lost you air out ,but you train to belief that you should be doing more pushing yourself further becoming mentally stronger …Thor-your big, fought BIGGER”spirit

[@MaxG628]

Doesn’t Goldman’s condition assume an omniscient observer who can contrast Smith’s flawed justification with the magically known true justification?

[@elsabeckles1187]

XD

[@superdicas7815]

Next time be direct and skip the poets and adress the problem