Philosophical Studies 20 (3):33 - 43 (1969)
|Abstract||The received definition of knowledge (as true, evident belief) has recently been questioned by Edmund Gettier with an example whose principle is as follows. A proposition, p, is both evident to and accepted by someone S, who sees that its truth entails (would entail) (that either p is true or q is true). This last is thereby made evident to him, and he accepts it, but it happens to be true only because q is true, since p is in fact false. Hence, inasmuch as he has no evidence for the proposition q, S can hardly be said to know (that either p is true or q is true). Here then is a formula for true, evident beliefs that are not cases of knowledge. I discuss the possibility of adding a fourth condition to this triad.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Beebe (2011). A Priori Skepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (3):583-602.
Rik Peels (2011). Ignorance is Lack of True Belief: A Rejoinder to Le Morvan. Philosophia 39 (2):345-355.
Wayne D. Riggs (2002). Reliability and the Value of Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (1):79-96.
Stephen Hetherington, Gettier Problems. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Richard Foley, A Trial Separation Between the Theory of Knowledge and the Theory of Justified Belief.
Patrick Hawley (2007). Skepticism and the Value of Knowledge. In Chienkuo Mi Ruey-lin Chen (ed.), Naturalized Epistemology and Philosophy of Science.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #79,694 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?