The Radical Responding to the Sceptical Argument Gettier Problem

Although the Gettier problem We can roughly express the can be put simply, it turned out sceptical argument in the that responding to the problem in

following way: a satisfactory way has been very

difficult. One strategy has been to Premise 1: We are unable to know try to ‘tweak’ the classical the denials of sceptical hypotheses. While some epistemologists focus account of knowledge. For on what knowledge is, others example, we might try to say that Premise 2: If we are unable to know attempt to show, contrary to knowledge is justified true belief the denials of sceptical hypotheses, certain sceptical challenges, that that is not based on any false then we are unable to know we have any at all. One such anything of substance about the presuppositions. (After all, in the challenge radical scepticism. world. clock case, you have the false There are two main components to presupposition that the clock is radical sceptical arguments. The Conclusion: Hence, we are unable working). The problem is, first component concerns what is to know anything of substance however, that it’s difficult to spell called a sceptical hypothesis, a about the world. out the relevant notion of scenario in which you are radically ‘presupposition’ so as to rule-out deceived about the world and yet the clock case from counting as   your experiences are just as they knowledge while not also ruling would be were you not being out a lot of beliefs we think we radically deceived. (For example, plausibly do know, but which also The premises are plausible, but the a scenario where you are really have false presuppositions lurking result is very counterintuitive. just a brain in a vat being led to That’s why this kind of argument is in the background. Another think you are experiencing the often called the sceptical paradox. strategy has been to not just things you seem to experience). ‘tweak’ the classical account, but The first key claim of the sceptical Is premise 2 too demanding? If so, to give up on it altogether. why? How could we know normal argument is that we are unable to things about the world if we don’t know the denials of sceptical know we’re not radically deceived? hypotheses like this. The second component involves the claim that Can you formulate a sceptical if we are unable to know the hypothesis of your own and use it as denials of sceptical hypotheses, Even a part of a radical sceptical argument? then it follows that we are unable stopped clock to know very much at all. (After sometimes How should this paradox be all, if I don’t know I’m not a brain resolved? in a vat, then how can I know that tells the right what is in front of me is a hand?) time

INTRODUCTION TO Some basic distinctions… PHILOSOPHY MOOC

Epistemologists are usually concerned the GETTIER with a kind of knowledge called propositional knowledge, which is the kind of PROBLEM knowledge you have when you know that something is true. This is different from What is knowledge? In 1963, Edmund Gettier (b. 1927) knowing how to do something (ability wrote a 3-page paper that completely changed epistemology. knowledge) and knowing a friend Do we have any? He raised counterexamples (acquaintance knowledge). against the classical account of knowledge by showing that you could have a justified true belief THE CLASSICAL ACCOUNT What is the nature of and yet still lack knowledge OF KNOWLEDGE knowledge? Can we because your true belief was ultimately gained through luck. Many philosophers, including Plato, have be sure that we have For example, suppose you go thought of knowledge as having ‘three any knowledge? Are downstairs and see that a reliable parts’: belief, truth, and justification. The clock reads ‘8:20’ and hence come idea is that you can’t know that (for there any good to believe that it is ‘8:20’. Your example) Paris is the capital of France belief is true because it is 8:20, and reasons to think that unless you believe that it is (belief), Paris it’s justified because you believe it knowledge is for good reasons. Suppose, really is the capitol of France (truth), and however, that, unbeknownst to you have good reason to believe that this is impossible? you, the clock stopped 24 hours so (justification). On the classical account, earlier, and so you are forming justified true belief is not only necessary your justified true belief by for knowing a proposition, but also looking at a stopped clock. Your sufficient; that is, if you have a justified, true belief is clearly a matter of true belief, you have knowledge. As we’ll luck, even though it’s both see, though, this simple account might not justified and true. The moral of the story: knowledge must be be right. Knowledge might require more. more than justified true belief.