Edmund Gettier Theory Of Knowledge Analysis

One way of understanding knowledge is that it fulfils the three criteria of being, justified, true, and believed. As this essay will explore, Edmund L. Gettier attempted to dismantle this theory of knowledge by arguing that it is possible to have a justified true belief without having knowledge. Following an evaluation of this, the integrity of Gettier’s assumption made in his argument will be explored, concerning his belief as to what the word justified means in this context. Furthermore, Gettier’s assumption can then be challenged by an alternate premise regarding knowledge that includes the criteria of adequate information. Finally, it will be argued that Gettier’s argument fails to address the very nature of knowledge by considering the …show more content…
Firstly, Gettier is attempting to argue that Smith is justified in believing that Jones will get the job at the end of the interview. His justification for knowing that Jones will get the job is that he is told this will happen, but when it turns out that Smith actually gets the job, this belief is proved to be false. Those who would argue that knowledge is justified true belief would surely say that in this case, Smith did not have the knowledge that Jones would get the job, because it did not satisfy the criteria of truth. However, the main point that Gettier makes is that Smith formed the belief that the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job and this specific premise turns out to be true, despite the fact that it was not Jones who got the job as Smith had justified to himself. Hence, Gettier is arguing that having justified true belief does not consequently result in having knowledge. He is stating that even with mistaken reason for a belief, the belief can still end up being the truth, even if the false reason was the justification or reasoning that lead to the true claimed conclusion. Ultimately, he is attacking justified true belief by claiming that justification, truth and belief do not sufficiently fulfil the criteria for …show more content…
His initial assumptions can easily be countered by arguing that partial knowledge is knowledge and that in Gettier’s cases, his subjects’ beliefs are not truly justified. While it could still be argued that having partial knowledge is not akin to truly knowing, it is certainly still worth considering that, counter to Gettier’s assumptions, justified true belief with adequate information may be sufficient criteria for knowledge. Nonetheless, it remains true that without a clearer understanding of what knowledge truly is, we cannot satisfactorily comprehend how it is