Belief, Truth and Justification Is Not Sufficient to Prove Knowledge

Belief, Truth and Justification is not sufficient to prove knowledge

Belief, true, justification that all we need to prove a statement or belief a mature knowledge according to the traditional definition of knowledge. This definition has been accepted by many philosophers for over two millenniums but still there is something missing in this definition which makes us to think that "Is Justified, True, Belief knowledge? That's what Edmud Gettier pointed in the 1963. First we will look what traditional definition as actually telling us. By having focused on this definition we need to ask ourselves a question that we actually constitutes knowledge? When we say that someone knows something or someone is having knowledge about it, what actually this statement means? What is the difference between the person having knowledge of something and a person who is unaware of knowing something? Well, knowledge is too board to answer all these questions so must need general characterization of it in order to know the answers. Now we will discuss briefly about the factors which is making possible for a statement of knowledge from traditional aspect. Knowledge is conditioned by three requirements that have to hold for someone, say 'S' to know something, say 'P':

1. P has to be true;

2. P has to be justified; and

3. S has to believe that p. (True-Justified-Belief) 1

Knowledge is a kind of belief that exists in our mind. For example I am doing a job in a office and I worked really hard for the project given to me in past few days and I successfully have completed it now in my mind there is a intuition that I will get reward for this or may be my boss will increase my pay. This is a kind of knowledge I am having in my mind based on my performance. Same time having a belief that I will be rewarded. This shows a relationship between the knowledge and beliefs. Belief is necessary but not sufficient for knowledge. Now next point is that knowledge requires truth. Belief can be true and false. As we come closer to knowledge we are actually increasing our stock of true beliefs and minimizing the false beliefs on the other hand. Knowledge requires truth if there is a domain in truth there can be no knowledge. A beauty in the eye of observer makes a belief that someone is beautiful cannot be true or false and thus cannot constitute knowledge. Here comes the need of justification. A belief is to be justified if it is obtained in the right way. Justification is matter of beliefs that someone holds on evidence and reasoning rather than luck and misinformation. A justified belief will more likely to be truth than to be an unjustified belief. By discussing all these point we have clear view of what traditional definition actually means. This definition later on also becomes a issue of debate between the Rationalists and the Empiricist. According to the Empiricist it is the experience that a sufficient condition for the occurrence of knowledge and Reasons is the necessary condition. But Rationalist argued that Reasons are the sufficient and experience is the necessary condition of the occurrence of the knowledge.

Now Edmud Gettier arises a point that traditional definition is too board and vast that it sometimes includes things that should be excluded. It leaves a space for inclusive injunctions. He has provided us example in which someone has a true, justified belief and still not aware of knowledge about it.

Consider an example. Suppose that the clock on campus (which keeps accurate time and is well maintained) stopped working at 11:56pm last night, and has yet to be repaired. On my way to my noon class, exactly twelve hours later, I glance at the clock and form the belief that the time is 11:56. My belief is true, of course, since the time is indeed 11:56. And my belief is justified, as I have no reason to doubt that the clock is working, and I cannot be blamed for basing beliefs about the time on what the clock says. Nonetheless, it seems evident that I do not know that the time is 11:56. After all, if I had walked past the clock a bit earlier or a bit later, I would have ended up with a false belief rather than a true one. This example and others like it, while perhaps somewhat far-fetched, seem to show that it is possible for justified true belief to fail to constitute knowledge. This example and others like it, while perhaps somewhat far-fetched, seem to show that it is possible for justified true belief to fail to constitute knowledge. To put it another way, the justification condition was meant to ensure that knowledge was based on solid evidence rather than on luck or misinformation, but Gettier-type examples seem to show that justified true belief can still involve luck and thus fall short of knowledge. This problem is referred to as "the Gettier problem." 2

JTB fails because it is too general and too unspecific. But Gettier questions that if JTB is false then what should replace it? This question later on answered by a Philosopher who had contributed in epistemology and metaphysics, Robert Nozick. He gave solution to this philosophical puzzle by adding some more points to the traditional definition. Robert Nozick has proposed the following insightful analysis of our concept of knowledge:

S knows that p if and only if:

1. P is true

2. S believes,