Turn on thread page Beta

Rep Pompiere! watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, I'm going to write a Philosophy essay now, and when I get back I'll post. Whoever's posted immediately before me, wins.

    Oh yes :cool:

    Btw, extra points if you do the essay for me.

    The essay is "assess the view that a justified true belief is not the same as knowledge" [24]
    Offline

    0
    I think, therefore i am :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what's it on, the essay that is?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    asses the whatty is not the same as a what???
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    :cool: Anyone else bored?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    The essay is "assess the view that a justified true belief is not the same as knowledge" [24]
    Easy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    je pense, donc je suis

    Also, I am nothing but the sum total of my jeans.

    Yes, I know Ive spelt genes wrong
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    find out definitions of the words et voila!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *steph 247*)
    find out definitions of the words et voila!
    If only...

    (btw, this isn't the final post).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oooh I'm doing that in Philosophy too
    Here's an essay from arrod.co.uk
    Assess the view that knowledge is a justified, true belief

    Tripartite theory attempts to define what knowledge is. The theory states that if we believe something, have a justification for believing it, and it is true, then our belief is knowledge. For example, John believes that he knows the way to the library: he has followed the sign to the library, and he is indeed heading in the correct direction. Therefore, states tripartite theory, John has knowledge of the way to the library.

    This seems straightforward and logical, but does it really describe the full extent of what knowledge is? Why even attempt to define what knowledge is?

    The reasons behind attempts to define what knowledge is lie in responding to sceptical arguments. Sceptics can doubt knowledge, or the sources of knowledge, so in order to respond to the sceptics it is useful to define what is being dealt with.

    The model of Plato's Ladder aptly describes the logic behind the theory. At the bottom of the ladder we have only ignorance, and at the top we have knowledge. Any given belief must climb the ladder, each step brining it closer to knowledge. The first rung is an unjustified belief; this is simply dogma. The next rung takes us to a justified belief, but this may still be true or false and so cannot be knowledge. The next rung is an unjustified true belief. The truth has been stumbled upon, but there is no reason why. The final rung is that of a justified true belief. The believer knows what they believe to be true, and they have justification for believing this. Thus, they have achieved knowledge.

    However, Gettier pointed out that a justified true belief might not be knowledge. He suggested examples of justified true beliefs that were not knowledge. Since then many other examples have been thought up and they are known as Gettier Counter Examples. For example, I have a friend who is an actor, and he has a fiancé. Walking past a church one day I see him emerge from the church with a bride, and many guests throwing confetti over them. I believe that he has got married without inviting me, my justification being the scene in front of me. This is also true; he has got married without inviting me. However unbeknownst to me he got married in secret the previous weekend, and the scene in front of me is the set for a film he is making. So although I am justified and correct in believing that he has got married without inviting me, Gettier would argue, I cannot be said at that moment to have knowledge of that as my assumption as to what I am seeing is incorrect.

    This is the crux of Gettier counter examples, each example has a problem involving the justification. A justification requires an assumption (in the example above that I was seeing a genuine wedding), the assumptions in Gettier counter examples are false, but through chance or invalid reasoning support a true belief.

    This leads to the criticism that Gettier counter examples are rare and contrived, but nonetheless attempts have been made to modify the Tripartite theory in light of Gettier's work.

    Lehrer proposed that there must be no false steps in the reasoning of the individual from the assumption to justification to belief (for example, if I saw my friends wedding and assumed him to be 34 years old, I might be correct, but my reasoning does not follow from my experience at that instant). There is another proposal that the justification(s) must not be false in order to support a true belief that is knowledge (therefore my belief that my friend had got married would be true, but not justified by this doctrine as my assumption that I was seeing a real wedding was false).

    The 'common sense' response to Gettier is simply that if you have a belief that is true and you can justify it, even if the justification is flawed, you still end up with the same truthful conclusion, and so the ultimate belief and thus the ultimate knowledge remains unchanged.

    Therefore, in claiming that knowledge is a justified and true belief, the tripartite theory of knowledge provides an adequate description of knowledge. In certain circumstances the rigour of the theory can be challenged, but in the final analysis the knowledge claimed remains the same.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    If only...

    (btw, this isn't the final post).
    aww

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    :argh:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    la la la
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    *walks the dog* :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    hello?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    hello?
    Hi :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    *atishooo*
    bless me
    *cough* damn my cold
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    anything?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So..
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 23, 2005
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.