Knowledge: Justified True Belief?

In 1963, Edmund Gettier, an American philosopher, wrote an essay refuting the traditional
analysis of knowledge or its definition as a "justified true belief" (JTB). He gave a
counterexample to the conception that knowledge is structured as follows:

S knows that P if (if and only if) P is true.

S believes P.

. S is justified in believing that P is true.

Here is a version of his counterexample:

Suppose that Lily and Lulu both signed up for a thrice-a-week zumba class. On their first
meeting, the teacher announced that at the end of the month, she will give an award to the most
graceful dancer, most consistent in attending the classes, and most joyful in class. After three
weeks, Lulu knows that the award will go to Lily because of the following evidences:

Lily is a graceful dancer. Lily has no absence at all. Lily has been happy for the past three
weeks of zumba classes.

Unknown to Lulu, there was one day last week when Lily was not entirely happy because she
lost her favorite zumba outfit. She was also unaware that the teacher saw her performances
graceful, that she has a perfect attendance, and her attitude has always been happy, too.

Gettier's counterexample showed that the traditional conception of knowledge is insufficient for
the following reasons: fallibilism and deductive transfer (of justification). Fallibilism shows that
agent S can be justified with her belief and yet the agent does not know that her belief is not
true. Deductive transfer shows that if S is justified in believing P, and if P entails Q, and if S
deduces from P and believes Q as a result of this deduction, then S is

justified in believing Q. Lulu is justified in believing that P (is true) because:

Lily has no absence. Lily is happy.

Lulu believes that Lily will win the award since P is true.

Given the evidence, Lulu is justified in her belief, although she does not know

that her belief is not true.

Lily is graceful.

This Gettier problem suggests that one might be justified in believing in false premises; hence,
you cannot just rely on the JTB. A more contemporary response to the problem of justification is
by looking at a fourth condition which, when added to the conditions of justification, truth, and
belief, will yield a necessary and sufficient condition (where it will not allow the circumstance of
"luck"). As such, one condition suggests that the fourth condition must cause for the agent to the
justification of the belief, so that accidental justified belief will be ruled out. Hence,

S knows P if and only if

P is true. S believes P

If P were true, S using method M, will believe P If P were not true, S using method M, will not
believe P

Consider the following example.

S knows that he or she is enjoying a cone of pistachio ice cream.

P is true. (It is a pistachio ice cream.) S believes P (Her experience of how pistachio ice cream
looks makes her believe that it is a pistachio ice cream.) 2.

To remove the possibility of accidental justified belief:

Agent S, using method M (looking into the container and ingredient list, and

looking for pistachio bits), will believe.

Agent S, using method M (looking into the container and not finding evidence that will suffice to
prove that it is a pistachio ice cream), will not believe.

Philosophers will admit that the nature of knowledge and how it can be determined open for
analysis. Once again, philosophizing reveals that it is not so much for the answers to a question
that a philosopher engages in philosophizing, or for that matter, seeking what is knowledge and
how its components (belief, truth, and justification) are interrelated. It is how, through the
process, one may limit the error in future processes to better understand the world.

Comparison of Knowledge and Wisdom

In Plato's Apology, Socrates, in his trial, presented what he realized was a defense:

O men of Athens, that God only is wise, and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of
men is little or nothing: he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an
illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is
in truth worth nothing. And so I go my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into the
wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise,
then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise, and this occupation quite
absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern
of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.

-Socrates, in Plato's Apology

In the account presented, you will notice key terms of philosophical interest to the problem of
knowledge and perhaps willingly say knowledge and wisdom are interrelated. Socrates to know
that he has no wisdom small or great, yet he also claimed that god is using him to illustrate that
the wisest of men is he who recognizes that "the wisdom of men is little or nothing." He even
used the phrase "in truth" to emphasize what the wisdom amounts or does not amount to. It
must also be noted that when Socrates went to inquire and subject others to his method of
questioning, his aim was to show to those who appear to he wise, that they are not.

Scholars would often indicate that there is a paradox here. Because if Socrates claim that he
does not have wisdom, how is it possible that he can show to others that they are not really
wise? How would he "know" how to evaluate? Others would interpret it in a manner where
Socrates did know, but what he reveals to the others is their pretense to know more than what
they truly know.

And so, Socrates proclaimed himself the gadfly of the Athenian Society. Toward his

final speech, he claimed:

I have told you already, Athenians, the whole truth about this: they like to hear the cross-
examination of the pretenders to wisdom; there is amusement in this. And this is a duty which
the God has imposed upon me, as am assured by oracles, visions, and in every sort of way in
which the will of divine power was ever signified to anyone.

- Plato's Apology

In the final analysis, can knowledge be separated from wisdom, or is knowledge and wisdom
interchangeable? Some perspectives would claim that knowledge is the compendium of
information in one's mind and wisdom is the ability to procure the information when needed.
This could be believed, but as true philosophers, the challenge is to subject this belief to
criticism and analysis. As Socrates said, it is a duty. Perhaps it was only given to Socrates, but if
people share the humanity in Socrates, does it not mean that people are equally responsible in
clarifying their beliefs until truth is arrived at? In the end, Socrates died, but he left his judges a
request:

When my sons are grown up, I would ask you, O my friends, to punish them, and I would have
you trouble them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything, more
than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing, then reprove
them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and
thinking that they are something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, I and my sons
will have received justice at your hands.

-Plato's Apology