Justified True Belief & The Gettier Problem (Epistemology)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into epistemology and focusing on the Justified True Belief theory and the Gettier Problem.
“What is knowledge”is the central question to Epistemology, the Justified True Belief theory attempts to answer this profound question by coming up with the criteria’s for knowledge, to have a belief, be justified in the belief and for the belief to be true. Can this work as the universal definition of knowledge? The Gettier Problem shows the limitations of this theory.
Watch as George and John explain and analyse both arguments.
For an introduction to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology paperback set, available worldwide on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
0:00 - Introduction
0:47 - Justified True Belief Explained
3:53 - The Gettier Problem (scenario 1)
5:44 - The Gettier Problem (scenario 2)
6:43 - Response to the Gettier Problem
#JustifiedTrueBelief #GettierProblem #Epistemology #Philosophy #WhatisKnowledge
For an introduction to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology paperback set, available worldwide on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9
Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R
Hands down the best channel for philosophy just love love love it 🫶🏼
My problem with Gettier cases isn't that the premises are false, but that the statement of the belief lacks specificity. In the coin example, it seems bizarre for anyone to ruminate on the belief that a person with 10 coins is going to get the job. However, if Smith stated his belief more specifically, saying that he believes _Jones_ will get the job, then now it's not a JTB because it's not true.
It's seems obvious that almost any statement can be made increasingly vague to a point where it is true, but I wouldn't say that it still reflects a person's sincere or relevant belief.
fella in the purple jacket is perfect suitable to perform the voice of a villain
This was uploaded at a perfect time for me. I’m writing an essay partly on this topic right now. Very helpful. You guys have been my teachers more than my teachers have. Thank you!
You're welcome, glad we could help :)
If you will forgive my asking, do you just accept the Gettier formulation or definition and/or can you improve on it?
Is it not absurd or incongruous to define knowledge in terms of something that is either the exact opposite of knowledge or something falling way short of knowledge?- Absent any better formulation about knowledge how would you convey to someone else how you experience what you call "knowledge"? May you not come up with your *own* definition of knowledge, and if not, why not?
What would be an example of you "knowing" something as opposed to anything else in relation to that something?- Are there degrees of knowledge - is it a relative, or an absolute, term?
Bearing in mind the fallacy argumentum ad populum(sometimes known as the fallacious supposition that there is a democracy of truth), and understanding *why* it is a fallacy, is knowledge contingent or does it depend upon upon one experiencer alone or does it require lots-or more than one experiencer (or what might be called corroboration) of experiencers?
Would you characterise knowledge as a species of experience? - Can one no more or less?
From what I read in my Philosphy book, the CEO said he would hire the one who has 10 coins, and Smith knew Jones had 10 coins but forgot he had 10 coins... I dont recall the CEO saying he wold hire Jones...
This channel is criminally underrated
Hundoo
Thank you, we are growing, slowly but surely :)
That's why I think having mere information is Knowledge. Even though the information is false and unjustified. That doesn't matter if you have information then it's knowledge.
This came out just as I am writing an assignment on this very topic... Thanks!
Pleasure, good luck in the assignment.
Making philosophy lessons like conversations easier to understand and accept. The examples taken are very helpful and the arguments of both people open up all possibilities and show there is no right and wrong but which can be picked up or ignored for all listeners.
Keep up the good work! 👌👌
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed the video.
Thank you so much for this. I think I can now defend my project with this understanding 💞💞🥰
Yes, the JTB definition of knowledge hinges on the definition of 'justified' ... just as JSM's harm principle turns on the definition of 'harm'.
I'd argue that the problem is actually that it says the belief must be true. That is not usually something we can verify at the actual moment. The request for infallible reasons has exactly the same problem. To put it this way, "truth" is not usually accessible to humans. If asking for infallible reasons is too much, then so is taking for the potential knowledge to actually be true.
Now if you reduce it to "justified belief", none of the problems arise, and I'd argue that that describes pretty much what actually happens. It'd be nice if the stuff were actually true, but nobody has any clue how to guarantee that. So if we insist on that condition, then there pretty much is only accidental knowledge, and worse, we'd have no way to tell.
Very beautiful explanation..... Thanks a lot
You're very welcome.
I was born May 25th, 1952 in Van Nuys Calif. Naw, that's just what they told me and I have accepted as fact hearsay evidence.
This video makes me doubt if knowledge even exists. It seems that what we call knowledge (including all personal experiences and scientific facts) is just some "almost knowledge" belief.
What about knowledge derived from infalliblism? While we don’t get any/many truths that actually describe the world from it we can still gain analytical, necessary knowledge
@@user-yz8oi9ez1e Really? And what exactly is that "analytical necessary knowledge"?
@@eklektikTubb something that is analytical is true by definition, so for example all bachelors are unmarried men. A necessary proposition is something that must be true in any reality, for example 2+2=4, it is not logically possible for it to equal anything else.
All analytic truths are necessary.
@@user-yz8oi9ez1e Hmm... yes, that sound reasonable. But you have to memorize that bachelors means unmarried men and you have to trust/believe your own memory. Besides, meaning of a word is not much of a knowledge, i dont see much information value in it.
@@eklektikTubb yeah that’s why I said it doesn’t really describe the world in my first comment, basic mathematical truths remain though?
Your animation is improving! I love it
Thank you :D
It is dreadful and a just as otiose and pointless as the music that some suppose must accompany these things-it adds absolutely*Nothing*
@@vhawk1951kl wow! I’m amazed by the degree to which the animation seems to offend you, and I wonder why you don’t just look away
Love these guys
( REHAB TIME! ) KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS DIVORCED FROM JUSTICE MAY BEE CALLED CUNNING RATHER THAN WISDOM. FACTS OVA FEELINGS!
Doesn’t the True step make JTB circular?
1- if we apply russelian analysis of definite description to the conclusion reached by smith in the first case then the conclusion reached by smith in the first case will be false ( smith is not jones).
2- the second case generates a general logical problem,and such problem is not special to the JTB theory of knowledge.
3- the gettier problem holds only if fallibilist conception of knowledge.
The fallibilist conception of knowledge is hardly distinguishable from skepticism.
The problem with the Gettier Problem (no pun intended) is it doesn’t deal with coincidences that lead to a belief being true are just that, coincidences. The differences in it and Justified True Belief with the example of the tree, is that there were other independent, corroborative sources that accounted for the true belief that a tree was indeed were he believed it to be. In effect causing the justified belief to be a true belief based on sufficient information. Not so with the belief of the person with 10 coins was to be hired. The belief of this came after a formulation of minimal facts (the person being hired, the coins and the coincidence of the two). There was not sufficient information and not enough independent sources to warrant a true belief… only a justified belief. His coin belief was justified and also true, but true by proxy. A little digging for more information topples the belief the person was hired because they had 10 coins and not that they just happen to have 10 coins. If the former belief were so they both would have been hired. This is where myths, legends, superstitions and religions are born. Minimal information, low or no independent sources corroborating information and filling in the blanks with a belief that is justified by mere coincidence, opinion, bias, etc., etc.
Do you not notice that-and how, you rely on the fallacy argumentum ad populum?
WOW! I absolutely love your vid about the Gettier problem! I also enjoyed your videos on empiricists and rationalists philosophers. Can you consider making a video about Leibniz? cuz Leibniz is probably the only rationalist philosopher u havnt convered yet. Thx for your great work, Philosophy vibe!
Thank you, and yes we will definitely look into Leibniz, thank you for the recommendation.
BELIEF IS JUST PERCEPTION. KNOWLEDGE IS A SPIRITUAL TRUTH.
Thank you so much for the simple explanation! I'm in the first year of college and had to write a paper on the Gettier Problem. This video helped a lot.
Glad we could help, thanks for watching.
You guys make awesome content of philosophy. Your videos should get more hits. I feel really disappointed.
😭 You guys are worth million subscribers. ❤️❤️
Thank you so much! Really glad you like the content :D
Who can see or detect the two words that kill the Gettier theory of knowledge dead?
Is it not absurd to define knowledge in terms of something that is the exact opposite of knowledge?
What exactly is the difference between "true belief and any other kind of belief?
Love these videos. Keep them coming!
Thanks! Will do!
Knowledge is justified belief. It cannot be JTB because that contains an appeal to future hypothetical ultimate knowledge that never actually exists. It cannot be less because belief alone is independent of evidence. Faith is unjustified belief, the polar opposite of knowledge. Belief is expectation of predictive certainty, whether or not backed by evidence.
It's amazing
Great stuff
Thank you
Do a video on UNDEFEATED Justified True Belief.
Interesting
I didn't get properly about the relevance of having a fort car and living in Barcelona!
I think the Gettier problem may be more about issues with logical validity and soundness rather than an issue with JTBs.
Your student seems very talkative.
Mocks in a week this is just in time
Glad we can help. Good luck in the mocks.
You said in the video that you had knowledge of a tree at the bottom of your road, then you went on to say that you had a belief of a tree at the bottom of your road, so did the knowledge of the tree form your belief in it or did you justify it was true because you had prior knowledge of it?
In the video he states it can only be considered knowledge if it meets the Justified True Belief criteria. Not that he started with knowledge.
The second half of your statement is backwards, to have knowledge of the tree at the end of the road, first he has to have a belief there is a tree at the bottom of the road, then he gave examples of himself seeing the tree, other people talking to him about the tree etc. so he is justified in his belief, and lastly it has to be true there is a tree at the bottom of his road. Then that becomes knowledge.
Ywo nkakagurang maging humss s.
Umabot nkong yt kaka research
My problem with that definition is that knowing that something is not true is also knowledge, so knowledge can imply not believing that something is true.
That's why I think knowledge is mere information. Doesn't matter the information is false and unjustified. If something is information then it's knowledge.
the Munchhausen Trilemma is a far greater problem for Justified True Belief. Disappointed it wasn’t brought up, nevertheless good video
So... we have no way of determining or defining knowledge in any concrete? Is knowledge then just like fluid or something? Its all just random data collected and we just prioritize our best guesses and call them facts or knowledge? Wait that is what a theory is in science anyway. Is knowledge synonymous with fact and theory? So many questions! Good video though!
We do. You can use virtue epistemology or infalliblism and other improvements on the tripartite view. In fact gettiers cases don’t necessarily disprove the tripartite. You can reject the starting premises or claim that the justification he gave isn’t sufficient or correct justification. Also the phrasing is what makes it true. What the subjects actually believe is not right it’s just lucky phrasing for example in the first example if you asked smith (or Jones I don’t remember which one) to name the person who will get the job they’ll name the opposite person. They don’t know they have the ten coins themselves so what they truly believe isn’t that they’ll get the job. But because the phrasing is the person with 10 coins they’re technically still right when they get the job themselves but that wasn’t what they intended. This however doesn’t mean the tripartite view is free from criticism as the justification clause isn’t clear or explicit enough about the level or type of justification required
No, knowledge would be the opposite of something fluid. Knowledge is an impossible bar to reach; no one has been able to do it yet. Science isn't knowledge. Knowledge has no assumptions attached to it, which is impossible (at the moment anyway).
'i only know one fact and that is that i know nothing'. there r solutions to gettier examples but all of them have their own problems. but tbh the first response addressed what u needed so i dont have much to add
In November, the discussion on the Gettier problem will come to an end - at least as we know it. I know it. 😂
very funny the purple shirt guy
How do you know this video is true?
But what if this is all just a dream of a space traveling duck-billed platypus? You can't be sure, and that's where faith comes in.
Philosophy exam today wish me luck💖
Good luck!
@@PhilosophyVibe thank youu
The only thing to know is not to know
The first scenario Gettier gave is problematic because of Jones' imprecise use of language. Instead of saying "the person" who has ten coins in his pocket would get the job," he naturally would have qualified the general term to either a demonstrative pronoun (i.e., "that" person, referring to Smith), or would have named Smith outright. When he coincidentally discovered he had ten coins and a job offer as well, he would have confessed he had no idea that he would be offered the job since the CEO said he would be offering the job to Smith... In other words, he did not have knowledge in terms of JTB. In the second scenario the claim that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona is not justified, despite whatever coincidences conspired to make the claim contingently true....
Examples of the so-called "Gettier problem" are so artificial that they seem ridiculous to everyday use of language.
I think the demonstrative pronoun is irrelevant here as Jones is trying to say something about having ten coins in your pocket in general I.E he believes that having ten coins in your pocket gets you the job even though his sample size is just Smith this is still a justified belief which was later found true by Jones finding ten coins in his pocket and getting the job
I disagree with Getier.
In case 1:
The proposition "The person who will get the job has 10 coins" doesn't capture entirely Smith' belief, which is "Jones will get the job and Jones has 10 coins".
Case 2:
Let A = "Jones has the car" and B = "Brown is on Barcelona". The first problem with Gettier's argument is the same of case 1: his true belief is on A not on B. Anyway, let us suppose that, for some reason, he also believes B. Still, there is a problem: Smith has evidence for A and not for B, so his belief A OR B is not justified, since only a part of this belief is justified. Just because it is an OR it doesnt imply that at least one should have justification.
Three weasel words in that: Belief(whose belief?)Tue(for who/whom?)Justified(to whom and how?)-Far too many hidden or tacit premises-or just assumptions, in the jumble of words.
is this what is wrong with the republican party in america?
Scientists are like little birds who prattle about the trees trying to learn how the world works using inductive reasoning.
The philosopher makes the error at the outset, with the material bias of a theory. Rather than a theory, Knowledge is a pre existing energy. This energy must have a psychological basis. A theory does not have this. D minus.