What is the 'Gettier Problem'? [Illustrated] 

You would understand it, when I will explain the "Socrates problem". During explain the "Socrates problem" you have the proof of the difference between the "abstract logic" and "practical logic". This is a part of the proof of the "Prokopf approach" (=new philosophy) 3rd rule (about logical spacies). Socrates problem: the "if A=B, and B=C, then A=C is provable only in the perfect logical space, wich one we cannot create, only approach it."

Sure! So take for instance a Gettier case where you see one of your colleagues, Ben, arrive to work in a black Porsche one day. You form the “justified” true belief that: ‘one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche’. However what you don’t know is that Ben only rents it, and does not actually own the car. Luckily though, another colleague of yours, Jane, happens to own a black Porsche - therefore making your belief true, without you knowing. Goldman would say that in order for the belief ‘one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche’ to be knowledge here: [1] You must hold the belief (which you do) [2] The belief must be true (which it is) [3] The belief must be justified (here is where Goldman gets more specific. In order to be justified, the justification must be “appropriately causal” to the truth of the belief. Nothing about Ben renting a Porsche makes it true that Jane owns a Porsche. Nothing about Ben renting a Porsche influences the truth of the belief, in other words. In order for the true belief ‘one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche’ to be knowledge, its justification must be ‘Jane is a colleague of mine and Jane owns of a black Porsche’ - insofar as it is this belief that causes the belief to be true) [4] The agent must be able to mentally construct a causal chain, and think in such a way “It is true that one of my colleagues owns a black Porsche, and the thing that makes this true is Jane being my colleague and her owning a black Porsche” (in a way it’s a formal requirement for the subject to recognise the causal relevance of the justification). Some criticise this approach, saying condition [4] looks fairly similar to [3]. Another common objection is that we still need to work out how a causally “appropriate” differs from a causally “inappropriate” justification. A lot of people, on the other hand, rather like Goldman’s response. Hope this helped!

Thank you very much. I understand it now. Stay blessed

@@ThePolymathsParadise Didn't Socrates have a better argument than Gettier in Theaetetus? afair He criticized Euclid for saying justified true belief is knowledge, not confirm it or agree with it.

@@ThePolymathsParadise Yay. Instead of justified true belief. We have truly justified true belief.

To me as a noob it illustrates, that is best to make sure you have a good "seed" to generate a Replica of Reality in your head from, and it is crucial to make sure, that you followed a causal path to construct it. ( physics is causal, everything is cause and effect ) This process is still not perfect, but this method has probably the highest success rate. - Its good to check how you arrived to a conclusion, because if you arrived at it for the wrong reason, next time you cant rely on this thought pattern, or you have a high chance for something to go wrong.. So maximize the congruence between Reality and the Mental Model in your head, by double checking the validity of the source of your information.