Gettier Cases etc... so what?

[GrowingSmaller]

If you don't know of them they are a challenge to the conventional true justified belief definition of knowledge that dates back to Plato.

I find them intriguing but want to know what the heck difference has it made to anyone outside of the field of philosophy whether we have to abandon TJB epistemology or not. It can be asked "So what? What practical difference does it make to anyone?"

 

[Tielec]

Given my signature I feel I should have something to say here. I don't.
Give me time

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I imagine thet philosophy might be an interesting and worthwhile persuit in itself. Maybe it's just the money mad politicians that have us all looking for literal cash value in the subject.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Could you provide an example or a link for those of us who've never heard of these things?

Thanks

 

[Chatter]

If you don't know of them they are a challenge to the conventional true justified belief definition of knowledge that dates back to Plato.

I find them intriguing but want to know what the heck difference has it made to anyone outside of the field of philosophy whether we have to abandon TJB epistemology or not. It can be asked "So what? What practical difference does it make to anyone?"

lol. You can ask that question about the whole of analytic philosophy. Relate concepts, make definitions, find counterexamples. Claim to be after the truth. Everyone else yawns.

What Western philosophy has become depresses me. But I think Received is the one to elaborate on that point, and my guess is that you'd take kindly to Kierkegaard.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Could you provide an example or a link for those of us who've never heard of these things?

Thanks

Sure, accept my apologies. This link seems to contain good coverage, courtesy of a site called "WordIQ".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sure, accept my apologies. This link seems to contain good coverage, courtesy of a site called "WordIQ".

Thanks. I could've searched myself. But, it seems advantageous have the OP point to something representative.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that Gettier style anaysis might have feedback into mainstream culture, just by affecting the intellectual climate and concepts of knowledge and justification. For instance on a forum like this where religion is discussed, epistemology is often central. I think that the skeptical alternatives like "your mystical experience was neurological rather then theological" are potentially similar to the cow in the field Gettier case. Maybe the skeptics are right and mystical experience is neurological, but nevertheless it might be a cause of TJB about (yet, importantly not knowledge of) the existence of God.

 

[Tielec]

I think that Gettier style anaysis might have feedback into mainstream culture, just by affecting the intellectual climate and concepts of knowledge and justification. For instance on a forum like this where religion is discussed, epistemology is often central. I think that the skeptical alternatives like "your mystical experience was neurological rather then theological" are potentially similar to the cow in the field Gettier case. Maybe the skeptics are right and mystical experience is neurological, but nevertheless it might be a cause of TJB about (yet, importantly not knowledge of) the existence of God.

For the intellectual plodders, rather than the mile a minute types such as yourself, am I to understand that you are saying;

A person has a spiritual experience.

The person correctly believes that such a spiritual experience was real (true).

The person concludes that god is real.

However, the spiritual experience was caused by neurological factors.

Strangely enough it happens that god IS real.

We wouldn't say the person had knowledge that god was real even though the person:
1) had justification (his experience)
2) had a true belief (god exists)
and therefore fufils the requirements of TJB.

--

I guess my response would be that I don't think that the spiritual experience was justification that a god exists, anymore than a correct guess from a psychic is justification that ESP exists.
Therefore the requirement that a belief be justified is not fulfilled, as my signature notes - true beliefs from lucky guesses don't count as knowledge.

It sounds obvious to me, but clearly it is not so cut and dried as these Gettier cases appear to be a thorn in the foot for philosophers. Please, tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For the intellectual plodders, rather than the mile a minute types such as yourself, am I to understand that you are saying;

A person has a spiritual experience.

The person correctly believes that such a spiritual experience was real (true).

The person concludes that god is real.

However, the spiritual experience was caused by neurological factors.

Strangely enough it happens that god IS real.

We wouldn't say the person had knowledge that god was real even though the person:
1) had justification (his experience)
2) had a true belief (god exists)
and therefore fufils the requirements of TJB.

Yes thats exactly right. I hope everyone understood.

--

I guess my response would be that I don't think that the spiritual experience was justification that a god exists, anymore than a correct guess from a psychic is justification that ESP exists.
Therefore the requirement that a belief be justified is not fulfilled, as my signature notes - true beliefs from lucky guesses don't count as knowledge.

It sounds obvious to me, but clearly it is not so cut and dried as these Gettier cases appear to be a thorn in the foot for philosophers. Please, tell me why I'm wrong.

I also think that it could be down to luck that my belief in God was true under the described circumstances. But also I think that all the Gettier cases (at least the ones I know of) where TJB is not regarded as knowledge, that they are also down to a fortuitous or "lucky" relation between the justification and the belief. For instance with the cow in the field example, the person looking for the cow saw a bag in a tree (IIRC) and mistook it for the cow. Therefore his TJB that the cow was in the field (because incidentally the cow was in the field anyways) was down to excessive luck, although he obviously had the technique of looking for a black and white object on his side.

I was wondering of this style of analysis could be used to evaluate metaphysical beliefs, to estimate the amount of luck metaphysicians (including naturalists) rely on if their beliefs turn out to be correct. Also I wonder if Cartesian style "absolutely certain beliefs" (for example Descartes thought that "I think therefore I am" was A-certain or infallibly known) could be defined as TJB with no luck at all involved.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

AFAIK one of the most popular responses to Gettier has been to abandon TJB theories and replace with reliablism. I think the nub of the thesis is that beliefs formed through a reliable process count as knowledge, even if the subject knows little about the reliability or cogency of the justicfication (i.e. reliablism is externalist).

This seems to me to validate the argument:

If one revealed religion is genuinely true,
And following this revelation leads to a reliable belief,
And some people believe in each revealed religion,
Therefore some people have religious knowledge.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

While remarkably short, the Gettier paper was arguably an important leap in epistemology. It's wider relevance, or 'practical use', is probably zero; but then again most of Philosophy faces the same charge.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

While remarkably short, the Gettier paper was arguably an important leap in epistemology. It's wider relevance, or 'practical use', is probably zero; but then again most of Philosophy faces the same charge.

So there is no practical difference between pre and post Gettier epistemologies?

 

[Chatter]

So there is no practical difference between pre and post Gettier epistemologies?

Stephen Stitch has been gathering evidence that the response to Gettier problems is cultural: some cultures regard the Gettier cases as examples of knowledge, others don't. Ah, but do those cultures have the same meaning of "knowledge" as we do?

Exactly why are we wasting our time here?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So there is no practical difference between pre and post Gettier epistemologies?

Depending on your definition of 'practical', I'd say no. But then again, many people see no practical difference between other intellectual leaps in philosophy either, at least not initially.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So there is no practical difference between pre and post Gettier epistemologies?

Depending on your definition of 'practical', I'd say no. But then again, many people see no practical difference between other intellectual leaps in philosophy either, at least not initially.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I zam thinking in terms of how the idea of God might be discussed episemologically in a forum like this. I don't see many (or any) reliablists around as far as I can tell. Then Again I can see people apparently influenced by positivism and scientism. I am not even sure what a post Gettier defence of theism would actually look like.