Knowledge as Justified True Belief

Definition

Knowledge as justified true belief is a traditional philosophical definition of knowledge that asserts for a person to know something, three criteria must be met: the belief must be true, the individual must believe it, and there must be justification or evidence supporting that belief. This concept emphasizes the importance of rational justification in distinguishing mere belief from knowledge, indicating that not all true beliefs are considered knowledge without proper justification.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The classical definition of knowledge as justified true belief was widely accepted until challenged by Gettier's work in 1963, which introduced situations where individuals possess justified true beliefs that intuitively do not qualify as knowledge.
2. Justification can come in various forms, including empirical evidence, logical reasoning, or testimony from credible sources, highlighting the role of reason in validating beliefs.
3. Philosophers debate the adequacy of justification, leading to various theories on what counts as sufficient justification for a belief to be considered knowledge.
4. Knowledge as justified true belief sets the groundwork for exploring more complex theories of knowledge that aim to address the shortcomings presented by Gettier problems.
5. This definition implies that to claim knowledge, one cannot simply believe something to be true; there must be a coherent reasoning process backing that belief.

Review Questions

• How does the concept of justification play a critical role in differentiating knowledge from mere belief?
  • Justification is essential because it provides the necessary support for a belief to qualify as knowledge. Without justification, even if a belief is true and held by an individual, it remains just a lucky guess rather than true knowledge. This concept emphasizes that rational support and evidence are fundamental in elevating mere beliefs to the level of knowledge.
• Discuss how Gettier problems challenge the traditional view of knowledge as justified true belief and what implications this has for our understanding of knowledge.
  • Gettier problems illustrate scenarios where individuals can possess justified true beliefs but still lack genuine knowledge due to unforeseen circumstances. For example, someone might have a justified belief based on misleading evidence that turns out to be true coincidentally. This challenges the sufficiency of the traditional criteria for knowledge, prompting philosophers to seek revised definitions or additional criteria beyond justified true belief.
• Evaluate the impact of the critique against justified true belief on contemporary epistemology and how it has shaped new theories about knowledge.
  • The critique against justified true belief has led to significant developments in contemporary epistemology by prompting philosophers to rethink the nature and criteria of knowledge. This has resulted in new theories such as virtue epistemology and reliabilism, which seek to address the shortcomings highlighted by Gettier cases. As these discussions continue, they push the boundaries of our understanding of what it means to truly 'know' something, inviting deeper inquiry into the essence and limits of human cognition.

Related terms

Justification: The reasoning or evidence that supports a belief, providing a basis for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion or false belief.

Epistemology: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge, including how knowledge is acquired and what constitutes justified beliefs.

Gettier Problems: Scenarios presented by philosopher Edmund Gettier that challenge the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief by demonstrating situations where one can have justified true belief without actually having knowledge.