ASSESS JTB
Infallibilism is the only de nition of knowledge which doesn’t de ne things that aren’t knowledge as
knowledge. We must accept we know very little but we can still discuss fallible truths in everyday life,
just not as philosophical knowledge. If Simon (S) knows a proposition (P) then we are saying: p is true, S
believes P, the belief that S holds is justi ed. These conditions are all
individually necessary and together su cient for knowledge.
Defeating JTB (S+P ex) Smith’s belief is justi ed: sees Jones count 10 coins from his pocket, and hears people
say jones will get the Job and True: smith has 10 coins in his pocket. Despite JTB we
issue
Gettier case 1 don’t want to say this counts as knowledge as luck led him to being correct. Therefore
JTB isn’t su cient for de ning knowledge.
P is true, S believes P, the belief that S holds isn’t
Strong
NO FALSE LEMMAS (S+P ex) based on a false lemma (premise).
issue Overcomes Gettier His belief “Jones gets the job” - is a false lemma/ premise.
Therefore it isn’t considered knowledge.
Fake red barns On the one occasion Henry looks at the only real barn and beliefs “there
is a barn”. This time it’s also true and justi ed by his visual perception.
It’s not inferred from anything false - therefore its knowledge. This shows
INFALLIBILISM (S+P ex) the NFL must be false, as its clearly not knowledge - he’s just lucky.
overcomes Gettier and Fake barns P is true, S believes P, the belief that S holds
Weak
issue Too strict cannot be rationally doubted.
So much room for error. They might be dreaming,
True, but we can still discuss or a brain in the vat. Therefore they doesn’t have
infallible justi cation and so can’t be knowledge.
fallible language in the everyday
We’re discussing what can be proved to be philosophical knowledge, not what you’re allowed to speak about casually day to day.
This theory says there’s little we can be certain of to be knowledge, but we still can discuss fallible truths in the everyday. This to
me is the most logical conclusion as it avoids issue of de ning knowledge incorrectly, whilst still allowing for casual discussion.
ffifi fi fi fi ffifi fi fi fi
Infallibilism is the only de nition of knowledge which doesn’t de ne things that aren’t knowledge as
knowledge. We must accept we know very little but we can still discuss fallible truths in everyday life,
just not as philosophical knowledge. If Simon (S) knows a proposition (P) then we are saying: p is true, S
believes P, the belief that S holds is justi ed. These conditions are all
individually necessary and together su cient for knowledge.
Defeating JTB (S+P ex) Smith’s belief is justi ed: sees Jones count 10 coins from his pocket, and hears people
say jones will get the Job and True: smith has 10 coins in his pocket. Despite JTB we
issue
Gettier case 1 don’t want to say this counts as knowledge as luck led him to being correct. Therefore
JTB isn’t su cient for de ning knowledge.
P is true, S believes P, the belief that S holds isn’t
Strong
NO FALSE LEMMAS (S+P ex) based on a false lemma (premise).
issue Overcomes Gettier His belief “Jones gets the job” - is a false lemma/ premise.
Therefore it isn’t considered knowledge.
Fake red barns On the one occasion Henry looks at the only real barn and beliefs “there
is a barn”. This time it’s also true and justi ed by his visual perception.
It’s not inferred from anything false - therefore its knowledge. This shows
INFALLIBILISM (S+P ex) the NFL must be false, as its clearly not knowledge - he’s just lucky.
overcomes Gettier and Fake barns P is true, S believes P, the belief that S holds
Weak
issue Too strict cannot be rationally doubted.
So much room for error. They might be dreaming,
True, but we can still discuss or a brain in the vat. Therefore they doesn’t have
infallible justi cation and so can’t be knowledge.
fallible language in the everyday
We’re discussing what can be proved to be philosophical knowledge, not what you’re allowed to speak about casually day to day.
This theory says there’s little we can be certain of to be knowledge, but we still can discuss fallible truths in the everyday. This to
me is the most logical conclusion as it avoids issue of de ning knowledge incorrectly, whilst still allowing for casual discussion.
ffifi fi fi fi ffifi fi fi fi
