The Gettier Problem Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

The Gettier Problem - Essay ExampleGettiers argument says that it is possible that a person believes in something that is justified as wellhead as wrong at the same time. One flaw is that Gettiers argument can lead us to cynicism because it is discernible from our everyday lives that it is hardly the strip when something is justified by satisfactory evidence that fulfills all philosophical rules of relevant evidence.Gettier wrote his 1963 paper refuting the Justified true Belief JTB. If Gettiers paper is considered true than JTB nullifies further the following example exposes cracks in Gettiers paper.S knows that P if and simply ifS believes PP is trueS is justified in accept P And P causes S to believe in P This example excludes the example of Gettier. And doesnt believe in something as a given fact, for good example if there is a group of people and one person out of the group happens to be Brazilian, the above example cannot give me the position to state that I know that so meone out of this group is a Brazilian since this fact will not be my cause for knowing. In his paper, is justified true precept knowledge of 1963, Edmund Gettier raised a problem which he argued and viewed in the traditional knowledge theory. Many attempts by a number of epistemologists have failed, for example, Thomas Paxson and Keith Lehrer govern across a theory, which utilized the defeasibility argument to attempt solving the Gettier problem (Lehrer and Paxon 225- 237). In my opinion, Gettiers problems possibly cannot be beaten of defeated on the fundament of principles because in order to understand these problems one has to consider the premise of these problems as true, as it will explained later in this paper that Gettier only plays with the justification and the truth. And it is evident that there is a very fine line between the justification and the truth. Moreover, there is always a certain level of truth to be veritable by a prudent person. For instance, if we all a gree to the fact that a billiard ball is or so, the question is, is it really round in shape? Students of physical science talent know that when things are observed at molecular levels, the shapes and boundaries of objects are very different from what they were previously considered. So a billiard ball might not be exactly round at a very fine microscopic or atomic level. Similarly if we Gettiers problems are considered a law or considered sufficient enough to define knowledge then the shape of the earth can be figured out by a bowling ball. For instance it is a common observation that a bowling ball is considered levelheaded and it is common sense that earth is holding all forests, water, filth and mountains, and is also a very heavy object. Now the bowling ball is round in shape, therefore we can conclude that the earth is also round in shape. I believe that it satisfies Gettiers problem but this is infect a terrible logic, there is no relevance between the two objects. If on ly such premises are considered then earth would be shaped like a washing machine because a washing machine is heavy too. One of the many objectives of epistemologists is to come up with a theory of knowledge that specifies the necessary conditions for knowledge. Traditionally, scientists have only agreed to three of these conditions, and they include p is true, s believes in p, and s has a justification to believe in p. according to the theories, if the theories satisfied the conditions then one could say that s knows p. but then Gettier came on with his arguments. In his arguments, he proposed to counterarguments to the traditional conditions, where the theory