What is Real - Justified by Knowledge?

7 September 2008

What is Real - Justified by Knowledge?

*Note: Many of my Gettier type examples are taken from an outside source found here: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/courses/epist/notes/gettier.html. I wanted to add this first, in case there is any confusion, even though I have it footnoted.

As I read The Gettier Problem, I became very excited about it. It really makes you think – what if the whole world is a delusion – or at least part of it. I mean, how much have we seen in our lives that we thought was real at the time, but now we aren’t sure. When I first started reading the document, I thought that it was nitpicking or presenting extreme circumstances, but quickly realized that there was something to this problem.
I do not believe that the characters in The Gettier Problem examples, which I have referred to at the top of the page, have knowledge, but actually have an illusion – some an optical illusion, and some an illusion in thought. For instance, Rosenberg’s sheep and the facades of the barns were obviously just teasing the eyes, tricking them into thinking that there was an actual object in the horizon. Whether or not there really was, such as was in the case of the real sheep being behind the rock, which was thought to be a sheep, is irrelevant, because the person does not see the real object. I could see a small piece of black paper crumpled up in the corner of my home, and think that it was a spider. There is probably a 100% chance that there is a spider in my home, because neither my husband nor I kill them, but if I didn’t see the real spider, then I have no real knowledge. This also agrees with the Correspondence Theory, which states that a proposition is true only if it corresponds with the facts of reality. Since I would know not whether it is a fact that there is a spider in my home or not, would prove my knowledge is deficient.
To accept something, which you are not sure of as fact can be a dangerous proposition. First of all, like in a murder case, which plays out very much like the “Tom stealing the book problem,” 1 one has to be very sure of what they see. A citizen could say, “I saw Johnny Smith kill Timmy Jones the other night.” And when asked how he knew, he could reply, “Because Johnny Smith is the only one with a red coat in town.” Now, what if Jimmy Taylor has since gone out an also bought a red coat, and he was the true murderer? If one relied on what the citizen said, then Johnny Smith would be going up the creek for a long time for something that Jimmy Taylor did. That is why it is so important that a forensics department use all the lab developments, which they have now. When accusing someone of such a crime, he must have true knowledge!
That also is much like what Paul said in Acts 17:11, where he encouraged the people of Berea to search the Scriptures to make sure what they hear is true. Even though, he wasn’t teaching on what they saw, but what they heard, he still makes it very clear – do not rely on your senses, but check and verify them before you set your mindset for or against them. It is the duty of mankind to do so. Illusion doesn’t count.
The three criteria of The Gettier Problem is 1) You know P is true 2) You believe that P is true, and 3) You are justified in believing that P is true. As we read in Is Justified True Belief Knowledge, this is a farce. We can see anything and believe it is true, and that it would happen to be a coincidence. If it is a coincidence, then it is not justified. The definition of justify at Mirriam-Webster Dictionary Online is: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable. Obviously, if something is a coincidence, then it is not proven. It’s a theory or a hypothesis, but not factual adequacy, as we learned last week. To improve upon these criteria, one needs to be the good Berean, so to speak, to investigate and to come to a conclusion based in fact, whether these beliefs are true or not. An investigation is the only way to be sure.
I do believe that the examples in the Gettier counterexamples, from the examples I found and have directed you to above, are valid, because I have shown, according to my beliefs that “justified true beliefs” are not valid, therefore, to prove that theory wrong counterexamples must be made. Again, if one is not absolutely sure in what they think and believe, then it can’t be justified. The Ford example is one in which is based on thought. The reader is to believe that someone in the office owns a Ford, and it turns out that someone else actually owns the Ford. 1 Obviously, if the reader isn’t sure, then it can’t be justified. If my husband and I owe for the newspaper, and I believe that he has paid for it, then could I count my belief justified and dismiss the carrier when he asks me for the money? Of course it wouldn’t be. There would be consequences - my paper delivery would be stopped, so I must be proven wrong with valid counterexamples before that happens.
As far as creating a counterexample to the Gettier counterexamples, let me first reiterate what Gettier believed. He “claimed that it was possible to have “justified true belief” about something, and yet it would not be considered knowledge,” according to our assignment page. One counterexample, which he used, was the situation of Jones and Smith, in which the one with the ten coins was to get the job.
To say that one knows something that means that he or she is aware of fact or truth, to have discernment, to have direct cognition of something or to have practical knowledge of something – such as a skill, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. One cannot say that he or she knows something, when it is a mere theory. The person has to have correct cognizant knowledge, meaning that he or she must be mindful of the matter. It must be observed or studied and concluded that it is a fact, and that is my conclusion of The Gettier Problem.

© 2010 Kimberly Padilla, A.A Religion