Home › Forums › Philosophy › "Solution" to Gettier's Problem
This topic contains 10 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by 
Quietlyquietly 3 years, 10 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Complexity does not prove or disprove truth, but in itself complexity and in many respects that is subject to interpretation. In the spirit of simplicity one must first look at the “Gettier Problem” not as fundamentally about giving definition to what “knowledge” is, but rather the issue of “definition” itself and the limiting nature of the question in the pursuit of broader answers.
The standard “procedure” of philosophy, manifested best in and through the Gettier Problem, is the issue of definition as arguments fundamentally fall into “this word means this, not this” scenario that is all too common during debates and act of questioning.
To deal with the Gettier Problem the issue of defining knowledge is what the majority, not all, of philosophers orient themselves toward. These definitions either lead one to an infinite regression for the sake of justification of belief or a myriad of definitions as to what knowledge really is, neither of which give clarity, solution, and/or understanding of not just knowledge but also Gettier’s problem thus further complicating it.
There is a fundamental flaw in modern philosophy that because something can be questioned, further understanding or even doubt can come as a result. But no one asks the question of “are all questions even justified or even justifiable to ask?” before exploring the root of a problem and/or mystery.
Is Gettier’s question even a valid question at all, or is it an intellectual “will to power” mimicking the philosophical spirit of Nietzsche?
One must stand back and look at Gettier question, not so much as a problem to be solved but rather a problem itself if any coherency to be found in this “situation”, as the nature of the question will influence the nature of the answer instead of guiding one to or from a truth.
Gettier’s question of “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” is a fundamentally flawed and illogical question that results not only in a complexity of answer(s) but a myriad of more questions that result in the infinite regress he is trying to avoid, assuming one is trying to avoid an infinite regress altogether.
The question appears to be axiomatic in nature as one cannot break down either (True) Belief or (True) Knowledge, as the definitions very so greatly among philosophers that either:
a) the question cannot be asked as no definition can be agreed upon, and it is within the nature of the question to provide definition, therefore no one knows what the question really is or
b) Belief and Knowledge have to be taken as axiomatic in nature and therefore can never be equated as the same thing but rather separate entities which are either codependent and(at the same time in different respects)/or cancel each other out.
Gettier’s question can be viewed in the perspective of “Does A=B when A=A and B=B?” with the only possible answer being “Does A=B when A=A and B=B?” as it cannot be viewed in any greater terms rather than an act of expressing doubt as to the nature of “A” or “B”.The question is about the definition of knowledge, under a “Justified True Belief” that a question can give definition to the “Knowledge” Gettier is trying to comprehend. There is no evidence that asking a question will always give or always allow the possibility of an answer being given, and in that respect I use Gettier’s Problem as an example. He does not give answer as to why in regards to examples of when justified true belief is knowledge and in many respects leads us to the conclusion we know nothing about knowledge and that is all we know. To put it simply the “problem” is less a problem and more an act of a belief in skepticism.
Gettier’s problem of “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” should instead be “Is Justified Doubt Ignorant?” and in many respects it is, as doubt has no claim over knowing anything, otherwise it would not be doubt.
From a separate perspective Gettier’s question can fundamentally be viewed as apophatic in nature by attempting to come to terms with what knowledge is by what it isn’t. In that respect he gives no definition as to what “Belief” is, yet he claims it as the axiom of his argument. He attempts to disprove a definition of knowledge as “Justified Belief” yet uses “Belief” as “Justified Knowledge” while intentionally or unintentionally claiming it as an axiom of his question. The question is fundamentally paradoxical in nature and if paradoxes are to be accepted, it is fine, but otherwise the question is the manifestation of the issue he is trying to avoid.
It is the equivalent of trying to get rid of the concept of a triangle by cutting off one of its angles with the resulting angle still giving form to a triangle. Gettier’s question is fundamentally irrational as it breaks down fundamentally to either Belief or Doubt and in many respects is an intellectual act of the will with no epistemological basis other than mental struggle on its own terms. Now one can get to the root of the problem of Gettier’s problem in Descartes’s “I think therefore I am” seed which sprouted to the tree of Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” giving fruition to the poisonous fruit of Gettier’s problem as all knowledge is inherently equated with obscurity through the act of faulty questioning. In this respect we can see many philosophers giving rise to “a problem of definition through the exertion of one’s will”.
There is no evidence that asking a question will always give or always allow the possibility of an answer being given, and I use Gettier’s Argument as an example; therefore, nullify the “problem” altogether and leaving philosophy to the more noble pursuit of wisdom rather than void irrational questions.All I know is that people often assume they know stuff they don’t really know, and we would all be better off if we didn’t overestimate our own knowledge. When it comes to our own thought process, we should use skeptism so that we can better understand why we believe what we believe. We arn’t perfect, and our perceptions of reality can be skewed by our biases. The only thing we can do is examine our own beliefs to the best of our abilities.
Anonymous42Paradox? Axiom? Truth? Deceit? Willing ignorance? It’s all about examining and extrapolating the facts, not the hype…
My avatar speaks volumes about this topic… Complex on the first observation, but filtered down to four simple and profound words of truth…
Seek and ye shall find the answers, no matter how much they’re hidden in a sea of lies…To over-simplify it, it is a faulty question fundamentally nullifying it and all-together voiding Gettier’s “problem”.
To give a better metaphor everyone assumes that when a woman screams it is because there is a danger within close proximity, but sometimes they scream out of some personal deficiency (there nature of want). There is no value to this, and what I am proposing is that some “philosophies” and questions have no more value than a shout into the void out of recognition of their own fundamental deficiencies. A mere expression of one’s own will, more or less.
In the pursuit of knowledge and/or wisdom some questions can give incorrect and/or no answer at all.
It is better to seek the right question than the right answer, because even with the answers we still have questions. This is all assuming questioning [under (a) specific circumstance(s)] is even the correct approach at all.
I think perhaps something is missed in Gettier’s analysis, that being that “knowledge” is something concrete, which we all like to think, but isn’t actually true. In the examples given on the wiki page, the “knowledge” that is based on an erroneous premise is only true for a short time period, and not true for any longer than that specific time period. We can say this about almost anything, unfortunately.
“Knowledge” changes according to beliefs. Beliefs change according to circumstance and interpretation. Circumstance is ever changing, and interpretation is based on repeatable patterns continuing to repeat themselves. As those patterns (and circumstances) change, so does the “knowledge”.
In your example of the woman screaming, we could conclude that she does simply because she has screamed every day for the last 20 years (cf. my ex!), or we could conclude that she is in danger (because of a pattern of indoctrination that assumes the case, or that we perceive a situation that fits our conception of danger), or it could indeed be a random event – she was stung by a bee that we did not see. But as you state, this brings up more questions, and as I mentioned, the “knowledge” changes accordingly, and over time.
From Buddhist logic, we are taught to question everything, that everything changes (except change itself), and that there is an eternal truth beyond meaning and words, that defies both question and answer, and questioner and respondent.
Thus Gettier’s problem is neatly sidestepped as a temporal problem, such as running out of toilet paper. It’s not worth worrying about, in Buddhist terms, the goal is the cessation (or merging) of question and answer, and Gettier is caught up in the dualistic nature of both.
Ultimately, from a Buddhist perspective, I would say that a conundrum such as this is a very good thing to dwell on, without trying to solve it, as this confuses the logical brain and brings an opportunity to experience “now” without labels, which we regard as a good thing.
I think perhaps something is missed in Gettier’s analysis, that being that “knowledge” is something concrete, which we all like to think, but isn’t actually true.
Gettier implied, that knowledge was not justified belief, through the use of examples and took an Apo phatic approach to coming to terms with what knowledge was by what it wasn’t. The issue was that “justified belief” was to be taken as axiomatic in nature, qualifying as (a form of) knowledge, thereby inadvertently contradicting himself. But the nature of his question, as stated in the first post, is fundamentally flawed.
In the examples given on the wiki page, the “knowledge” that is based on an erroneous premise is only true for a short time period, and not true for any longer than that specific time period. We can say this about almost anything,
We cannot say this about certain concepts such as mathematics, in which A+B=C will always be A+B=C, and to imply that mathematics had a beginning or end would only be an assumptive theory as there is no concrete or abstract evidence to either. Also certain verbs/actions, most specifically “know, to know, knowing” etc. have to be concrete due to an axiomatic nature for even the thought to exist.
In regards to the Buddhist “issue” I will address that later, as I am currently multitasking, and to put it frankly just lazy because its the weekend. +1 for the separate perspective.
Well to stray into mathematical territory, A+B=C is only true for as long as we say it is true, since all of mathematics is conceptual, so it still applies (because the concepts can, and will change, even if the time scale is significantly longer):
1+1=3, for large values of 1.
If we re-name 1 as 2, then 1+1 has no meaning, and 2+2=2, 3, 4 and even 5 according to definition!The easiest analogy to Gettier’s problem in mathematics is zero. It is “a number” that has no value. So by defining it, it has a value, which negates it’s own definition.
Looking forward to your response later.
Well to stray into mathematical territory, A+B=C is only true for as long as we say it is true, since all of mathematics is conceptual,
Actually we do not know that it is conceptual. We know aspects of mathematics are conceptual, but not conceptual itself. 1+1=2 will always be 1+1=2.
But this conversation, would be better expressed I believe by simply addressing the “only law is continual change” you have expressed early as, not to pass judgement on you, this seems to be the “root” premise of your argument/viewpoint.
I will simply say the “only law is continual change” is faulty on its own terms as change requires a pre/post action for it to occur and regardless of whether the actions are perceived or acknowledged in many respects they have no other course but to be perceived or acknowledged as they are always present in the culmination of the eternal “now” which is change according to you. But for the eternal now to be requires there not to be change. “Now-ness” cannot change and is not change.
A singularity of time made manifest in existence is not change, but change is rather an act of limit perception as all that is, is. But our perceptions are limited in some respects, and this limiting factor is conducive to change.
To put this briefly, change gives evidence to other certainties, for without these certainties change would never be.
Take for a example a rabbit (now this may be a really s~~~ty example but take it for what it is) that disappears due to a predator eating it. The rabbit may cease to exist one day, but through a chain of reactions (eating grass, building nest, etc.) it left a mark in the environment and in that respect (more of a multidimensional one) the rabbit never really left as one aspect of the rabbit was to act, and these actions ripple.
So in some respects, the continual ripple of time is an ever present moment that is eternal. But that is not change, but rather movement as in a ripple the water is always present in some aspect.
I will simply say the “only law is continual change” is faulty on its own terms as change requires a pre/post action for it to occur and regardless of whether the actions are perceived or acknowledged in many respects they have no other course but to be perceived or acknowledged as they are always present in the culmination of the eternal “now” which is change according to you. But for the eternal now to be requires there not to be change. “Now-ness” cannot change and is not change.
Yes, and you have stumbled over another aspect of the Buddhist idea of conundrums, that being that the “eternal now” is ever changing – a contradiction in terms!
To put this briefly, change gives evidence to other certainties, for without these certainties change would never be.
However here there is a contradiction in thought, as change gives no certainty at all. We cannot revisit the past, thus we cannot confirm it. Nor can we visit the future and confirm that either. No certainty can be present, except in the present. But if we live fully in the present, there is no other time, and we have no reference because past and future do not exist, thus no confirmation can exist, nor is any necessary.
The moment we even think about past or future, we stop living in the present, ending the conundrum and engaging in duality.
But we may be straying from Gettier just a little bit here….
But we may be straying from Gettier just a little bit here….
(excuse the format, as I typed this out in 15 minutes on notepad because I am in a rush)
It may appear that way, but in all actuality far from it as the implications of saying (through an apophatic implication) that justified true belief is not knowledge has a universal affect on our understanding of knowledge which goes across board to all philosophies and religions.
It is no small statement he is making. Now to say that Justified true belief is knowledge is different than saying that knowledge is justified belief as his
argument takes on a linear fashion of thinking, which in many respects leads it to be faulty as existence manifests itself in a multidimensional aspect of the
“eternal now” (which is what both of us were talking about). Knowledge can always be justified belief, but justified belief (as he attempts to prove) cannot
always be knowledge (all though in some respects it can). And because of the nature of this observation, as I have pointed (or at least attempted to) out proves
his question to be fundamentally void through its own approach as to what knowledge really is.Now my critique, or disagreement, with Gettier’s problem is with the problem itself but also fundamentally the philosophical perspectives that gave birth to it.
These perspectives, I believe, are fundamentally rooted in a “I think therefore I am” way of thinking. This thought process grew into the tree of the “Will to
power” and from this tree came the poisonous fruits of problems, up to and including Gettier’s, which inhibit one’s desire for wisdom as the fruits of doubt
give no real nourishment other than everyone once in a while clearing a system of impurities. Through, dealing with Gettier’s problem I am really (and this is
only an attempt) dealing with the inherent problems of Descartes and Neitzchian metaphysics.Now my critique, or disagreement, with Gettier’s problem is with the problem itself but also fundamentally the philosophical perspectives that gave birth to it.
These perspectives, I believe, are fundamentally rooted in a “I think therefore I am” way of thinking.Yes, I have a problem with this style of philosophy. I understand why it would arise, there’s political, social, economic and even gender reasons why it would, but it’s fundamentally dishonest. In a time in France when peasants were seen as almost non-human, the aristocracy (and burgeoning upper middle classes) were the only ones with control of society (such as the vote) and the only landowners, coupled with an inherent distrust of lower class uprising (as happened a century later), it is convenient to make the statement “I think, therefore I am”. Because it bolsters the arrogance of the ruling strata of society, as it is (tautologically) correct that lower class people couldn’t read, write or “think” about complex problems. The fact that the lower class were needed in the fields tending crops and animals to provide food for the elite, and thus couldn’t be educated without the system collapsing, was used as a reason that they weren’t clever enough to be educated. Thus they weren’t capable of thinking. So it appears that Descartes based his philosophy on a logical fallacy, but one that appealed to the mindset of those that would actually listen to his ideas.
In my opinion, “I think, therefore I am” is a male way of looking at things, and if a female had said it, it would have been “I feel, therefore I am”. Neither is really correct.
I have personally experienced (only once, though) the situation during meditation of watching my thoughts arise and disappear. In examining where they come from, it is impossible to say, they arise out of nothing and also impossible to say where they go. This is in accordance with Buddhist teachings.
In addition, I have experienced brief moments of the complete absence of thoughts, yet I still existed, was critically aware, and experiencing normal life.
Thus I know from personal experience that thoughts do not create existence. And the absence of thoughts do not negate it either.
This is a core part of Buddhist philosophy, that of thoughts, their origins, absence, spontaneous arising and cessation, and the concept of “I”.
A Buddhist might look at Descartes’ statement and say, “First tell me where ‘I’ resides”. Descartes, like any other person, should eventually come to the conclusion that there is no specific place that “I” resides, and the concept of “I” is faulty. When one searches diligently to find where “I” resides, one cannot find it.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
