The Gettier Problem

This book enriches our understanding of knowledge and Gettier's challenge, stimulating debate on a central epistemological issue.

The Gettier Problem has shaped most of the fundamental debates in epistemology for more than fifty years. Before Edmund Gettier published his famous 1963 paper, it was generally presumed that knowledge was equivalent to true belief supported by adequate evidence. Gettier presented a powerful challenge to that presumption. This led to the development and refinement of many prominent epistemological theories, for example, defeasibility theories, causal theories, conclusive-reasons theories, tracking theories, epistemic virtue theories, and knowledge-first theories. The debate about the appropriate use of intuition to provide evidence in all areas of philosophy began as a debate about the epistemic status of the 'Gettier intuition'. The differing accounts of epistemic luck are all rooted in responses to the Gettier Problem. The discussions about the role of false beliefs in the production of knowledge are directly traceable to Gettier's paper, as are the debates between fallibilists and infallibilists. Indeed, it is fair to say that providing a satisfactory response to the Gettier Problem has become a litmus test of any adequate account of knowledge even those accounts that hold that the Gettier Problem rests on mistakes of various sorts. This volume presents a collection of essays by twenty-six experts, including some of the most influential philosophers of our time, on the various issues that arise from Gettier's challenge to the analysis of knowledge. Explaining Knowledge sets the agenda for future work on the central problem of epistemology.

This book argues that a complete dissolution of the Gettier problem is possible using Jaakko Hintikka’s Socratic Epistemology, with its emphasis on questioning as a knowledge-seeking procedure. The key to accomplishing this task is to treat Gettier’s counterexamples as a game of inquiry where epistemic agents deal with various pieces of information, employ different moves, and make different choices or strategies (such as bracketing or unbracketing an item of information) in determining for themselves what to believe in, or what they can claim to have knowledge of. This book will appeal to both undergraduate and graduate students, as well as post-graduate researchers, as it offers a novel perspective for understanding the Gettier problem and a cogent explanation for the failures of previously proposed solutions to it. All this is made possible by going beyond analysis and dealing with the experiences of epistemic agents in actual problem-solving scenarios.

Presents a rich and accessible survey of an epistemological problem that continues to challenge philosophers.

The sensitivity principle is a compelling idea in epistemology and is typically characterized as a necessary condition for knowledge. This collection of thirteen new essays constitutes a state-of-the-art discussion of this important principle. Some of the essays build on and strengthen sensitivity-based accounts of knowledge and offer novel defences of those accounts. Others present original objections to sensitivity-based accounts (objections that must be taken seriously even by those who defend enhanced versions of sensitivity) and offer comprehensive analysis and discussion of sensitivity's virtues and problems. The resulting collection will stimulate new debate about the sensitivity principle and will be of great interest and value to scholars and advanced students of epistemology.

Epistemology has for a long time focused on the concept of knowledge and tried to answer questions such as whether knowledge is possible and how much of it there is. Often missing from this inquiry, however, is a discussion on the value of knowledge. In The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding Jonathan Kvanvig argues that epistemology properly conceived cannot ignore the question of the value of knowledge. He also questions one of the most fundamental assumptions in epistemology, namely that knowledge is always more valuable than the value of its subparts. Taking Platos' Meno as a starting point of his discussion, Kvanvig tackles the different arguments about the value of knowledge and comes to the conclusion that knowledge is less valuable than generally assumed. Clearly written and well argued, this 2003 book will appeal to students and professionals in epistemology.

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.

The "Gettier Problem" has shaped most of the fundamental debates in epistemology for more than fifty years. Before Edmund Gettier published his famous 1963 paper (reprinted in this volume), it was generally presumed that knowledge was equivalent to true belief supported by adequate evidence.Gettier presented a powerful challenge to that presumption. These led to the development and refinement of many prominent epistemological theories: internalism, externalism, evidentialism, reliabilism, and virtue epistemology. The debate about the appropriate use of intuition as providing evidencein all areas of philosophy began as a debate about the epistemic status of the "Gettier intuition". The differing accounts of epistemic luck are all rooted in responses to the Gettier Problem. The discussions about the role of false beliefs in the production of knowledge are directly traceable toGettier's paper, as are the debates between fallibilists and infallibilists. The "knowledge first" view was, in large part, provoked by the supposed failure of all solutions to the Gettier Problem. Indeed, it is fair to say that providing a satisfactory response to the Gettier Problem has become alitmus test of any adequate account of knowledge - even those accounts that hold that the Gettier Problem rests on mistakes of various sorts.This volume presents a collective examination by twenty-six experts, including some of the most influential philosophers of our time, of the various issues that arise from Gettier's challenge to the analysis of knowledge. Explaining Knowledge sets the agenda for future work on the central problem ofepistemology.