Contrarily to LukeProg, knowledge of the Gettier Problem improves one’s epistemology because it shows that knowledge equals justified true belief is not a viable stance.
Consider two agents who are communicating with each other in an attempt to reach Aumann Agreement. These agents will certainly need precise words for the following concepts:
Reality: “Is statement A true?”
Belief: “Does agent M believe that statement A is true?” and “With what probability does Agent M believe that statement A is true?”
Map/Territory correspondence: “Does Agent M’s belief that Statement A is true correspond to reality?”
Calibration: “Are Agent M’s beliefs well calibrated?”
Epistemic process: “What method did agent M use to generate his posterior beliefs?” “Is that method reliable?”
Gettier problems show that you won’t be able to project these five dimensions onto a single binary. Which is true but not very insightful. Moreover, I can’t imagine that the ability to reach Aumann agreement will ever depend on the definition of “knowledge”. Therefore, this is mostly an empty semantics discussion.
It’s not very insightful if you already know that knowledge isn’t a primitive construct, but justified true belief held sway for an incredibly long time and most people don’t realise that there isn’t a straightforward definition for knowledge until exposed to the Gettier problem.
How did that realisation change the way you interact with knowledge? As you claim your epistemology is improved, what kind of mistakes did you do in the past that you don’t do anymore?
justified true belief held sway for an incredibly long time
What does that mean? Philosophers proclaimed for a long time that knowledge is about justified true belief? I think over my life I have been exposed to many different ways of dealing with knowledge and I don’t think one of them was knowledge is primarily justified true belief.
Justified true belief held sway over philosophers, but it is also what most people would come up if you asked them and they thought about it for enough. People understand that knowledge is about having particular beliefs, that these beliefs have to be true and that people have beliefs that are true, but which they don’t actually know to be true (justified element). I bought this definition until I was exposed to the Gettier problem.
but it is also what most people would come up if you asked them and they thought about it for enough
There an easy way to check whether that might be true. Look at the producers of dictionaries.
Webster: information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education awareness of something : the state of being aware of something
Maybe the guys at that dictionary are an expection. Let’s look at the Cambridge dictionary: understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally: the state of knowing about or being familiar with something
Studying philosophy mislead you. Neither of those definitions speaks about justification or truth.
I don’t think saying that knowledge is information that's due to experience of education is giving a synonym.
But even if someone defines a term via synonym they are still defining the term. It’s worthwhile to note that different people interact with language differently.
At the moment where you accept the framing of the question as the only way to look at the issue, you miss a lot of real world usage of the concept in question by people who don’t use the same framing as you do.
Consider two agents who are communicating with each other in an attempt to reach Aumann Agreement. These agents will certainly need precise words for the following concepts:
Reality: “Is statement A true?”
Belief: “Does agent M believe that statement A is true?” and “With what probability does Agent M believe that statement A is true?”
Map/Territory correspondence: “Does Agent M’s belief that Statement A is true correspond to reality?”
Calibration: “Are Agent M’s beliefs well calibrated?”
Epistemic process: “What method did agent M use to generate his posterior beliefs?” “Is that method reliable?”
Gettier problems show that you won’t be able to project these five dimensions onto a single binary. Which is true but not very insightful. Moreover, I can’t imagine that the ability to reach Aumann agreement will ever depend on the definition of “knowledge”. Therefore, this is mostly an empty semantics discussion.
It’s not very insightful if you already know that knowledge isn’t a primitive construct, but justified true belief held sway for an incredibly long time and most people don’t realise that there isn’t a straightforward definition for knowledge until exposed to the Gettier problem.
How did that realisation change the way you interact with knowledge? As you claim your epistemology is improved, what kind of mistakes did you do in the past that you don’t do anymore?
What does that mean? Philosophers proclaimed for a long time that knowledge is about
justified true belief? I think over my life I have been exposed to many different ways of dealing with knowledge and I don’t think one of them was knowledge is primarilyjustified true belief.Justified true belief held sway over philosophers, but it is also what most people would come up if you asked them and they thought about it for enough. People understand that knowledge is about having particular beliefs, that these beliefs have to be true and that people have beliefs that are true, but which they don’t actually know to be true (justified element). I bought this definition until I was exposed to the Gettier problem.
There an easy way to check whether that might be true. Look at the producers of dictionaries. Webster:
information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or educationawareness of something : the state of being aware of somethingMaybe the guys at that dictionary are an expection. Let’s look at the Cambridge dictionary:
understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally:the state of knowing about or being familiar with somethingStudying philosophy mislead you. Neither of those definitions speaks about justification or truth.
They aren’t really defining it just using synonyms.
I don’t think saying that
knowledgeisinformation that's due to experience of educationis giving a synonym.But even if someone defines a term via synonym they are still defining the term. It’s worthwhile to note that different people interact with language differently.
At the moment where you accept the framing of the question as the only way to look at the issue, you miss a lot of real world usage of the concept in question by people who don’t use the same framing as you do.