#gettier problem

I know that Edmund is in my room because I’m fucking him.  I’m holding a spliff in one hand and my other is on his chest as I grind down hard and listen to his moans.  It sounds like him and it feels as good as it gets.  We have been doing this more or less constantly since he arrived and hung his black coat on the back of my door.

My phone pings.  That’s weird.  It made the unique notification sound I set for Edmund so I could give his messages appropriate priority.  My phone must have gone wrong, but how?  I’m curious and Edmund underneath me looks like he can take a break, so I roll off him saying; ‘Just a sec.’

Oh what the hell now?  My phone has a text from Edmund on it.

‘Sorry I can’t be with you tonight.’ Sent 20 seconds ago.

I look at Edmund in my bed, he is smiling at me.  I look at Edmund’s text on my phone and ping a reply; ‘Don’t mess with me now, you’re in my bed!’

I listen intently and from somewhere comes the chime of a notification, I can’t be sure, but I think it came from under the bed.

‘Come back to me,’ says Edmund in my bed, holding out his empty hands.

My phone pings, that unique sound again. ‘How do you know it’s me?’ says Edmund on my phone.

From “Funlosophy”, a series of articles for a newsletter.

In the Biblical story of Easter, Jesus’ resurrection is described. His body was placed in a tomb carved into rock, and a huge boulder placed over the entrance. After three days, He returned to life, the stone rolled away and He left.

Mary Magdalene was one of the first to find His tomb was empty, discovering He had risen.

But what if Mary Magdalene had accidentally gone to a nearby cave, mistakenly thinking it was Jesus’ tomb? She’d see the entrance to this cave unblocked, and Jesus’ body absent from within. She would come to exactly the same conclusions as if she’d gone to the right place.

If she’d gone to the actual tomb and seen the actual evidence, this would be what is defined in epistemology as ‘knowledge’.

Despite having gone to the wrong place, her conclusions are correct. This is known in epistemology as ‘true belief’ (this is a philosophical definition of ‘belief’ and does not relate to religious faith). It’s not knowledge, as she hasn’t seen the actual tomb, but it is belief, as she believes she’s seen good evidence.

If she’d gone a day early, Jesus still in His tomb a little way away, her seeing the random cave and assuming Jesus had risen would be defined as ‘false belief’ – she believes something that is wrong.

However, in this what-if scenario Mary Magdalene went to the wrong cave, but at the right time, so this is a case of true belief. This leads to a question that has been discussed at least as far back as Plato and is still disputed to this day: is knowledge more valuable than true belief?

People’s knee-jerk reaction tends to be that knowing something, supported by accurate evidence, is more valuable than being right by chance. However, this can be hard to argue, without resorting to claiming it’s better “because it just is!”

If the outcome is the same, and, more importantly, correct, does it matter that the method for getting there could just as easily have failed?

To give a simpler example, imagine you wonder what time it is, and look at a clock. The time is 4 o’clock, and the clock says it is 4 o’clock. However, what you don’t realise is that the clock has stopped, and always shows 4’o clock.

As it stands, your assumption that it’s 4’o clock is right, but for most of the rest of the day, you’d be wrong. This, then, is true belief – you’re right, but without reliable evidence it’s not knowledge. You believe it’s the end of the workday, and clock off, and no-one will complain, because it was indeed the time you thought it was.

指導老師：鄭光明

期中考--葛棣爾問題

Try to think of further examples that illustrate the Gettier problem: cases of highly justified true beliefs that do not seem intuitively to be cases of knowledge. Once you see how they work, such cases are amazingly easy to invent. Can you think of other cases involving perceptual or observational justification? Can you think of cases involving inductive or scientific reasoning? Can you think of mathematical cases? Can you think of cases involving beliefs about one's own states of mind?

1.      跟知覺、觀察有關的

如果我從外面看到宿舍房間燈亮著就代表我室友在房間裡。現在我看到宿舍房間的燈亮著，所以我就知道我室友在房間裡。但是其實我看錯棟了，看到的是隔壁一棟樓同一個位置的房間燈亮著。結果我的室友真的在房間裡。雖然我相信室友在房間哩，他也真的在房間哩，但是我們卻不能說我擁有「室友在房間裡。」這個知識。

2.      跟歸納或科學有關的

學校統計校內學生對學餐的滿意度，通常由校方發起的正規統計都正確。但是這個學期的登記員在輸入資料的時候因為不滿自己被異化勞動，故隨意輸入資料，中途還打瞌睡，統計得學生對學餐的滿意度評分為82.6。統計資料公佈以後健康中心的老師覺得很奇怪，遂親自重新輸入統計，沒想到結果真的是82.6。除了該名老師以外所有看到公告並且相信這個數據的人都不能說擁有這個知識。

 3.      跟數學有關的

數學老師在上三角函數單元的時候開玩笑告訴同學如果填充題不會就猜0就很有機會猜中。小明謹遵老師的玩笑，考試的時候剛好有一題填充題不會，他就寫下了0。沒想到那題答案卻是6，但是小明字跡潦草所以老師以為他寫的是6，所以小明得分。小明相信他的答案是正確的，而他在答案券上的的答案也確實是正確的，但是我們不能說小明知道該題目的答案。

 4.      跟心靈狀態有關的

小黑最近常常覺得睡不飽，他的損友大黑瞎鬼扯說：我看你其實是吃不飽而不是睡不飽吧！小黑因此就相信他是吃不飽而不是睡不飽。當小黑向醫生諮詢的時候，醫生判定他是因為三餐不正常導致能量不足、沒精神，而不是沒睡飽。雖然小黑相信他是吃不飽，也確實是如此，但是我們不能說小黑擁有「小黑吃不飽」這個知識。

https://www.setthings.com/en/knowledge-definition-gettier-problem/

Knowledge definition - The Gettier problem

Fallibilism and The Gettier Problem

The Gettier Problem is one of the most well known cases of an alleged refutation by counterexample in philosophy. Most philosophers probably believe that the counterexample successfully shows that the JTB analysis of the concept: KNOWLEDGE (My convention for symbolizing concepts in text is to put the concept being mentioned in all caps. Tokens of words are in quotes, and propositions are flanked…

As far as I know (because I came in a little late sorry) We started our discussion with this video, which explains Plato's allegory of the cave:

Our discussion there on after was a bit all over the place.

Someone proposed that fear could be defined by the acronym False Evidence Appearing Real. When we fear things it's often because we have a negative and false idea of them. This was related to single stories, for example, many people defend their discriminatory behavior towards others with false evidence (propaganda, stereotypes, second hand information that sheds that group in a bad light). That evidence allows their idea of these people to appear true and legitimate.

We also talked a bit about epistemology: Plato proposes that to know something it must be something that is true, that one believes, and that one has justification for believing - Which was countered by the Gettier problem

Cool Things:

Immortal Jellyfish (Turritopsis dohrnii)

Is Anything Real?

Movie Recomendations:

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Lucy

(I didn't remember much else from the discussion, so I apologize for the lack of detail here but feel free to add your ideas in the comments)