Gettier

paper title: 

THE ORIGIN OF THE ‘GETTIER’ PROBLEM: SOCRATES AND THE THEAETETUS (pages 51-66)

paper type: 
article
paper author: 

Michael JENKINS

paper author family name: 

JENKINS

paper abstract: 

ABSTRACT:This article discusses the origin of what has become known as the Gettier Problem. It examines the claim put forward, though not expounded or defended, by J. Angelo Corlett in Analyzing Social Knowledge that the basis for Edmund Gettier’s article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” was originally argued for in Plato’s Theaetetus. In his article, Gettier argues that the Justified True Belief condition is not sufficient for knowledge. However, Corlett questions the originality of this argument. This article examines Gettier’s article followed by the Theatetus. After which, the two articles are compared, and the claim is shown to be correct in accusing Gettier of failing consider the full work of the Theaetetus.  Socrates also argued that the Justified True Belief condition was not sufficient for knowledge. However, this article concludes by arguing that Socrates went further with his examination than Gettier did. Socrates not only put forward the claim that this condition was insufficient for knowledge, he also tried to supply answers to the problem.

paper issue: 
3

THE GETTIER NON-PROBLEM (pages 85-108)

Submitted by logos on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 16:10
paper title: 

THE GETTIER NON-PROBLEM (pages 85-108)

paper type: 
article
paper author: 

Stephen HETHERINGTON

paper author family name: 

HETHERINGTON

paper abstract: 

ABSTRACT: This paper highlights an aspect of Gettier situations, one standardly not accorded interpretive significance. A remark of Gettier’s suggests its potential importance. And once that aspect’s contribution is made explicit, an argument unfolds for the conclusion that it is fairly simple to have knowledge within Gettier situations. Indeed, that argument dissolves the traditional Gettier problem.

paper issue: 
1

GETTING GETTIER’D ON TESTIMONY (pages 361-369)

Submitted by logos on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 22:54
paper title: 

GETTING GETTIER’D ON TESTIMONY (pages 361-369)

paper type: 
article
paper author: 

Lauren J. LEYDON-HARDY

paper author family name: 

Leydon

paper abstract: 

ABSTRACT: There are noncontroversial ways in which our words are context dependent. Gradable adjectives like ‘flat’ or ‘bald’, for example. A more controversial proposition is that nouns can be context dependent in a reasonably similar way. If this is true, then it looks like we can develop a positive account of semantic content as sensitive to context. This might be worrying for the epistemology of testimony. That is, how can we garner knowledge from testimony if it’s the case that, though our syntactic utterances are identical, the semantic content of them may fail to be uniform? What if we mean different things by the same words? I argue that these kinds of semantic divergences provide the groundwork for a new kind of Gettier case. That is, given the likelihood of divergent semantic content, we can see a way to scenarios in which, despite that the semantic content is uniform, we might get justified true beliefs that nevertheless fail as knowledge. This, because it just as likely could have been the case that relevant contexts were dissimilar, and thus relevant semantic content would have been divergent. Lastly, where the losophie.hu-berlin.de">MoeckelC@Philosophie.hu-berlin.de.

paper issue: 
2

Powered by Drupal 6 | web development: Codrin Dinu Vasiliu

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system
Syndicate content
© 2010 Logos & Episteme | An International Journal of Epistemology. Drupal theme by Kiwi Themes.