Is Justified True Belief Knowledge

“Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” (The Gettier Problem)
Background
Epistemology: A theory of _____________
What do we mean when we claim to know something? What kinds of conditions must be satisfied in order for a claim to become knowledge?
Note: we are interested in __________________ knowledge here (S knows that p), not knowledge of how to do things (e.g., knowing how to ride a bike)
The tripartite theory of knowledge – knowledge as justified true belief (JTB)
The truth condition
We can’t know something that is false. We may think that we know, but it would simply be a mistake.
The belief condition
If we claim to know that p, we must believe that p. We cannot “know” something and yet do not “believe” in it. (Even though we can still believe in a claim that we don’t know about…) In other words, believing is a _____________ condition for knowing, while knowing is a ______________ condition for believing.
The Justification condition
Simply holding a true belief is not enough; we must also be able to give support to our belief.
Example of a true belief that we don’t consider knowledge:
But why is a ___________ true belief more valuable than a __________ true belief? Traditionally, philosophers have been pretty satisfied with the tripartite theory of knowledge. The three conditions set out above are individually necessary, and jointly sufficient, for knowledge claims. Now, this tripartite theory of knowledge is precisely the target of Edmund Gettier’s 1963 paper “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”
Recall the pragmatic purpose of an argument: to persuade your audience of a proposition that they don’t already believe. Gettier’s argument serves this purpose by challenging a commonly accepted notion of knowledge (knowledge as JTB)
First, Gettier lays out two assumptions of his argument
Justification is ____________________One can be justified in believing something that is in fact ___________________.
One is justified in believing a proposition that one has been validly deduced from another statement, i.e., if one is justified in believing P, and if P entails Q, then one is justified in believing Q.
Method of _____________ examples:
Gettier has produced two examples that 1) satisfy the tripartite conditions of knowledge; yet 2) we are not inclined to consider them knowledge.
Case 1: “The man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
Case 2: “Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Barcelona”
In both examples, the “knowers” have a justified true belief, but __________ plays an important role in both examples…
Constructing a Gettier case:
Case 3: You see your professor passed out at the Corner Pub. So, you believe in the following proposition P: Prof. S was drinking at the Corner Pub tonight.
Suppose you are justified in believing in proposition P: your professor told you that she was going to the Corner Pub; you know that your professor is a lightweight; the person you saw passed out has a stack of quizzes on the chair next to her.
Now, it is in fact true that Prof. S was drinking at the Corner Pub tonight. However, the person you saw was actually her identical twin sister. She came to visit your professor, and the two of them went to the Corner Pub for drinks. You saw your prof’s sister passed out while your prof was getting a taxi outside.
So, even though you have a justified true belief, do you have knowledge?
Two possible solutions to the Gettier problem:
Strengthen justification – a claim that is truly justified cannot be false (denying Gettier’s first assumption)
Find the fourth condition! Knowledge is justified true belief + something else