Edmund Gettier's Theory Of Knowledge

1313 Words6 Pages
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 idea of partial knowledge. Gettier presents his argument in the form of two cases, but looking only at the case of Smith and Jones will suffice in understanding his argument. 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…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

    More about Edmund Gettier's Theory Of Knowledge

      Open Document