EXAMPLE PAGE
, How should we define knowledge?
Statement of Intent: We should define knowledge under Sosa’s Virtue Epistemology. I will do
this by showing that JTB and subsequently No False Lemmas is unconvincing. I will then show
that Infallibilism is not a convincing account for knowledge and then show that Sosa’s Virtue
Epistemology deals with most of the problems of the previous theories and so is a much
stronger theory and therefore should be how we define knowledge. The key contention is the
problem of truth and justification and the gap between them and the theory that deals with that
the best is the best theory.
RICE 1:
R: We should not define knowledge as JTB due to Gettier Case. In one of Gettier original cases,
Smith has good justification that Jones will get the job because the CEO of the company has
told him that. Smith also knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket cause he has counted
them there. Therefore because of these premises he has entailed the proposition that ‘the man
who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’. However it turns out that Smith is the one who
gets the job and unknown to him he also had ten coins in his pocket. And therefore the
proposition that The man who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket is true. According to JTB,
he did have knowledge because it was true, he did believe and he was justified because he
counted the coins and the CEO told him. However we would say he did not have knowledge
and therefore JTB is not the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge and is not the
correct definition.
I: We can adjust the definition of knowledge. No False Lemmas. S knows P IFF: P is true, S
believes that P, S is justified in believing P and S did not infer P from a false lemma. A false
lemma (an argument made part way through an argument) is a false claim inferred from the
inaccurate justification and therefore making the statement not knowledge. Smith concluded that
Jones will get the job from being told by the employer and he then used that information to
conclude that the man with ten coins in his pockets will get the job. So ‘Jones will get the job’ is
a lemma. This solves the previous issue in which Jones inferred the propositions from a false
lemma and so he did not satisfy the definition of knowledge and therefore the problem is
resolved.
C: Whilst this does solve the original cases, it still does not deal with the underlying issue about
the gap between truth and justification - how sure do we have to be of justification etc. And
because of that we can easily find further Gettier cases which satisfy the 4th condition and yet
we still wouldn’t call this knowledge. AKA Dr Jones Case. Dr Jones has Lab results suggesting
that Smith has disease X (all the symptoms and lab results all seem to conclude he has disease
X and there is no known virus which produces these results) however in reality Smith has
disease unknown Y . Dr Jones proceeds to diagnose Smith with Disease X, but by chance
, How should we define knowledge?
Statement of Intent: We should define knowledge under Sosa’s Virtue Epistemology. I will do
this by showing that JTB and subsequently No False Lemmas is unconvincing. I will then show
that Infallibilism is not a convincing account for knowledge and then show that Sosa’s Virtue
Epistemology deals with most of the problems of the previous theories and so is a much
stronger theory and therefore should be how we define knowledge. The key contention is the
problem of truth and justification and the gap between them and the theory that deals with that
the best is the best theory.
RICE 1:
R: We should not define knowledge as JTB due to Gettier Case. In one of Gettier original cases,
Smith has good justification that Jones will get the job because the CEO of the company has
told him that. Smith also knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket cause he has counted
them there. Therefore because of these premises he has entailed the proposition that ‘the man
who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’. However it turns out that Smith is the one who
gets the job and unknown to him he also had ten coins in his pocket. And therefore the
proposition that The man who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket is true. According to JTB,
he did have knowledge because it was true, he did believe and he was justified because he
counted the coins and the CEO told him. However we would say he did not have knowledge
and therefore JTB is not the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge and is not the
correct definition.
I: We can adjust the definition of knowledge. No False Lemmas. S knows P IFF: P is true, S
believes that P, S is justified in believing P and S did not infer P from a false lemma. A false
lemma (an argument made part way through an argument) is a false claim inferred from the
inaccurate justification and therefore making the statement not knowledge. Smith concluded that
Jones will get the job from being told by the employer and he then used that information to
conclude that the man with ten coins in his pockets will get the job. So ‘Jones will get the job’ is
a lemma. This solves the previous issue in which Jones inferred the propositions from a false
lemma and so he did not satisfy the definition of knowledge and therefore the problem is
resolved.
C: Whilst this does solve the original cases, it still does not deal with the underlying issue about
the gap between truth and justification - how sure do we have to be of justification etc. And
because of that we can easily find further Gettier cases which satisfy the 4th condition and yet
we still wouldn’t call this knowledge. AKA Dr Jones Case. Dr Jones has Lab results suggesting
that Smith has disease X (all the symptoms and lab results all seem to conclude he has disease
X and there is no known virus which produces these results) however in reality Smith has
disease unknown Y . Dr Jones proceeds to diagnose Smith with Disease X, but by chance
