Gettier Problems 

Thank you. This was very helpful. I have been generally familiar with epistemological problems through familiarity with Plato, Descartes, and Kant along with views of truth, such as coherence and correspondence. Along with categories like rationalism and empiricism. But the modern debates about internalism and externalism and justification and warrant, were difficult as I could not connect how these all fit together. I have listened to several descriptions of the Gettier problem, but your presentation along with the your video on externalism and internalism have been so helpful in putting the big picture together. So helpful! It’s all still settling down, but the insight that one of the major issues here is the “sufficient condition” problem and whether when we think we know something, we actually know, or if we are just getting lucky. Anyway, thanks so much. The way you have presented the problem and the possible solutions clicked for me. Objects in the room of epistemology no longer feel like they are randomly flying about.

Very helpful

Thanks

Mam, Thank you from INDIA ❤️🙏 .... Plz continue your channel .

🥰🥀❣️

In the first argument, it wouldn't work since the first condition is justified true belief and our senses alone can be justified proof for a belief. The information we get from our senses is not true knowledge since any one sensation can be for many things both known and unknown. In the sheep example, it wouldn't be justified true knowledge that there's in fact a sheep cause the only proof obtained was from the senses. You have to do something processing of crude information to turn in from mere information to knowledge, which I don't think necessary has to be true in a global sense Justified knowledge, I think, is meant more like the knowledge we have of numbers, or colors, or smells, etc. In the case of the sheep we can't put a label on what we are seeing but we can be sure the colors, sounds, etc are really there

here's a dumb idea: what if we built it into the concept of justification that a false belief can be justified (so we're not doing the move of just going 'the belief that it's a sheep was never justified in the first place') but a it's part of what justification means that a belief can never inherit justification from a false belief. as i understand it, gettier problems happen when you've got one belief that's false but justified, one belief that's true and might or might not be justified (it seems to be agnostic in that regard, believing 'whoever gets the job has 10 coins' doesnt need to be justified, we could have smith be inspired to just sorta believe that aribitrarily and the gettier problem still works because the final statement is inheriting justification from the other side and truth from this side). so a belief can be false but justified, but such a belief cannot pass on its justification to a consequent belief. meaning that in the argument 'this creature is on the field' and 'this creature is a sheep' therefore 'there's a sheep on the field' the statement 'this creature is a sheep' is justified but the statement 'there's a sheep on the field' isnt, because the falsehood of the former is preventing its justification from being passed onto the latter. even as i type this i dont really believe it tbh, it feels like you're using two different definitions of justification at once, but it does feel true to me that you don't have to disallow for false justified beliefs to get out of this mess. there's something problematic to the core about a statement deriving truth from one source and justification from another. a way to adress this that still feels like cheating would be to say something like 'knowledge is belief justified through truth'. but at the end of the day what it feels like to me is that there is something like a fourth condition, it's not luck (luck is just the thing that's making its absence obvious in the gettier problems) and it gets violated when a statement inherits truth and justification from different sources. in other words, knowledge is justified true belief whose justification and truth are coherent between themselves. idk does this work, i have no idea what im talking about lol.