Analysis of Edmund Gettier's Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?

Regular price €25.99
Quantity:
In stock with our UK publisher. 14-28 days
Delivery/Collection within 10-20 working days
14 days return policy Shipping & Delivery
A01=Jason Schukraft
Author_Jason Schukraft
case
Category=DSA
Category=JM
Category=JNZ
Category=JPA
Category=QD
Convict
counter-examples
East Asian Counterparts
eq_bestseller
eq_biography-true-stories
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
Fourth Condition
Framed Defendant
gettier
Gettier Cases
Gettier Intuitions
Gettier Problem
Gettier's Counter-examples
Gettier's Paper
gettiers
Gettier’s Counter-examples
Gettier’s Paper
Holds
Independent
Intuitive Judgments
Junior
kenneth
Linda Zagzebski
Main
methodology
paper
philosophical
Philosophical Methodology
problem
Smith's Belief
Smith’s Belief
Springs
stern
Strong
Testimony
True Justified Belief
Unknown Philosopher
Verdict
Viewpoint
Wayne State University

Product details

  • ISBN 9781912302987
  • Weight: 330g
  • Dimensions: 129 x 198mm
  • Publication Date: 15 Jul 2017
  • Publisher: Macat International Limited
  • Publication City/Country: GB
  • Product Form: Hardback
Secure checkout Fast Shipping Easy returns

For 2,000 years, the standard philosophical model of knowledge was that it could be defined as a justified true belief. According to this way of thinking, we can know, for example, that we are human because [1] we believe ourselves to be human; [2] that belief is justified (others treat us as humans, not as dogs); and [3] the belief is true. This definition, which dates to Plato, was challenged by Edmund Gettier in one of the most influential works of philosophy published in the last century – a three page paper that produced two clear examples of justified true beliefs that could not, in fact, be considered knowledge.

Gettier's achievement rests on solid foundations provided by his mastery of the critical thinking skill of analysis. By understanding the way in which Plato – and every other epistemologist – had built their arguments, he was able to identify the relationships between the parts, and the assumptions that underpinned then. That precise understanding was what Gettier required to mount a convincing challenge to the theory – one that was bolstered by a reasoning skill that put his counter case pithily, and in a form his colleagues found all but unchallengeable.

Professor Jason Schukraft teaches Philosophy at The University of Texas at Austin.

More from this author