In my first post I discussed The Standard View, justified, true, belief, using the existence of a pot of gumbo as an example. Upon further examination, I realized Gettier's problems with justification are applicable to the scenario. As discussed in Richard Feldman's Epistemology, Gettier's problems deal with the truth of knowledge being accidental. To formulate my own Gettier style example, based on those contained in Epistemology, I will use the original gumbo example.
When the kitchen has smelled like gumbo in the past mother has indeed made a pot of gumbo. On this basis I believe.
1. When the kitchen smells like gumbo mother made gumbo.
I am hungry and craving gumbo. The kitchen smells like gumbo. Thinking that (1) is true, I conclude that:
2. It smells like gumbo thus I am justified in believing there is gumbo.
It turns out that mother had purchased the new Glade plug-in scent, Louisiana Gumbo and that is what I smelled when I walked into the kitchen. However mother has made a pot of Gumbo which is in the refrigerator.
I have a justified true belief in (2), but I do not know (2). It is a coincidence, the Gumbo in the refrigerator, that makes me right about it.
Gettier style problems showcase justification as fallible and not enough for knowledge. Yet, this belief, justification as not enough for knowledge based on past experiences where justification failed in leading to the truth, is itself justified by past experiences.
Yow. Very nice. The precise idea Gettier was arguing for, though, was that justification wasn't quite enough for knowledge - because in this case, you have a justification, but clearly (says Gettier) you don't know that there's Gumbo. You're right only by accident, he says, so it don't count.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain, a bit, the last sentence? Spell it out a bit more slowly for me?
[Familiarity in Gettier.]