The Gettier Problem: A Challenge to the Traditional Account of Knowledge

For most of philosophical history, knowledge was understood as Justified True Belief (JTB). This classical model holds that for a person to know something, they must believe it, it must be true, and they must have a good reason or justification for their belief. This definition was considered robust and comprehensive until 1963, when Edmund Gettier published a short paper that presented powerful counterexamples. Gettier's central thesis was that the JTB conditions are not sufficient for knowledge. He created 'Gettier cases'—scenarios in which a person forms a belief that is both true and justified, but which we intuitively would not call knowledge. The core issue in these cases is 'epistemic luck.' The subject's belief ends up being true by sheer coincidence, in a way that is completely disconnected from their justification. For example, a person might have a justified belief based on a false premise (e.g., that Jones will get a job), which luckily turns out to be true for entirely different reasons (e.g., the person themselves gets the job and also meets the conditions of the belief). The Gettier problem revolutionized modern epistemology. It demonstrated that a successful analysis of knowledge must find a way to rule out epistemic luck, ensuring that the justification for a belief is appropriately connected to its truth. This has led to a decades-long search for a 'fourth condition' to add to the JTB model, with proposals including the 'no false lemmas' theory, causal theories, and reliabilism, all attempting to finally solve the puzzle of what it truly means to know.

1. The Classical Definition of Knowledge: Justified True Belief (JTB)

For over two millennia, since the time of Plato, philosophers operated with a seemingly robust and intuitive definition of knowledge. This classical account, known as the Justified True Belief (JTB) model, posits that knowledge is composed of three individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. To say that a subject (S) knows a proposition (P), the following must be met:

1. Belief (B): S must believe P. This is the subjective component; you cannot know something you do not believe. If you don't believe that Paris is the capital of France, you cannot be said to know it.
2. Truth (T): P must be true. This is the objective, reality-based component. You cannot know something that is false. You might believe you can fly, but you cannot know it, because it is not true.
3. Justification (J): S must be justified in believing P. This is the evidence or reasoning component. Your belief must not be a mere lucky guess; it must be supported by good reasons, evidence, or a reliable process. For instance, you are justified in believing it is raining if you look out the window and see water falling from the sky and people carrying umbrellas.

For centuries, this JTB model was the bedrock of epistemology (the theory of knowledge). It seemed to cover all the bases, elegantly distinguishing genuine knowledge from mere opinion or lucky guesses.

2. Edmund Gettier's Philosophical Bombshell

In 1963, a philosopher named Edmund Gettier published a short, three-page paper titled "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" that fundamentally and permanently altered the course of epistemology. Gettier's goal was not to propose a new definition of knowledge, but to demonstrate through counterexamples that the three conditions of the JTB model are not jointly sufficient for knowledge. In other words, he showed that it is possible for a person to have a justified true belief that still fails to be knowledge.

These counterexamples have come to be known as Gettier Cases. They are cleverly constructed scenarios designed to pump our intuitions and lead us to the conclusion that, while the JTB conditions are met, the person in the scenario does not actually possess knowledge.

3. The Classic Gettier Cases Explained

Gettier's original paper presented two cases. Both rely on two key principles:

i. The Principle of Justified False Belief: It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. ii. The Principle of Justified Deduction: If a person is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and they deduce Q from P, then they are justified in believing Q.

Case I: The Man Who Will Get the Job

• The Setup: Smith and Jones have applied for the same job. Smith has strong evidence for the following belief: (a) "Jones is the man who will get the job." This evidence includes the company president telling him that Jones will be selected. Smith has also just counted the coins in Jones's pocket and knows that there are ten. From this, Smith has a justified belief that: (b) "Jones has ten coins in his pocket."
• The Deduction: Smith combines these two justified beliefs to form a new, logically deduced proposition: (c) "The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket."
• The Twist: As it turns out, Smith, not Jones, gets the job. Belief (a) was false, even though Smith was justified in believing it. Furthermore, unbeknownst to him, Smith also happens to have ten coins in his pocket.
• The Analysis: Let's check the JTB conditions for Smith's belief (c):

1. Is it true? Yes. The man who gets the job (Smith) does have ten coins in his pocket. 2. Does Smith believe it? Yes. He deduced it and accepted it. 3. Is Smith justified in believing it? Yes. He deduced it logically from two propositions for which he had strong evidence.

According to the JTB model, Smith knows that "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." Yet, our intuition screams that he does not. He has no idea he has ten coins in his pocket, and his entire reason for believing the proposition was based on the false premise that Jones would get the job. His belief is true only by a stroke of luck.

Case II: Jones's Ford or Brown in Barcelona

• The Setup: Smith has a justified belief that (d) "Jones owns a Ford." His justification is that for as long as he has known Jones, Jones has always owned a Ford, and he has just seen Jones driving a Ford. Smith has another friend, Brown, but has no idea where Brown is.
• The Deduction: Smith arbitrarily picks a city and forms a new belief through logical disjunction (the 'or' statement): (e) "Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Barcelona."
• The Twist: Jones does not own a Ford; he is driving a rental car. Belief (d) is false, despite Smith's strong justification. However, by sheer, complete coincidence, Brown is in Barcelona.
• The Analysis: Let's check the JTB conditions for Smith's belief (e):

1. Is it true? Yes. The second part of the 'or' statement ("Brown is in Barcelona") is true, which makes the entire proposition true. 2. Does Smith believe it? Yes. 3. Is Smith justified in believing it? Yes. It is a logical entailment of a proposition (d) for which he had good evidence.

Once again, Smith has a justified true belief that we would not count as knowledge. The truth of his belief has absolutely nothing to do with his justification for it.

4. The Core of the Problem: Epistemic Luck

Gettier cases reveal the corrupting influence of what philosophers call epistemic luck. In both scenarios, the subject's belief turns out to be true by sheer accident. The chain of justification is disconnected from the facts that make the proposition true. Smith's justification points one way, while the truth lies in another, and they only intersect by coincidence. The JTB model is insufficient because it does not have a condition that can rule out this kind of luck.

5. Life After Gettier: The Search for a Fourth Condition

Gettier's paper sparked a cottage industry of philosophical work aimed at 'fixing' the JTB analysis. The goal has been to add a fourth condition (JTB+X) that successfully excludes Gettier cases from counting as knowledge.

Some prominent proposals include:

• The 'No False Lemmas' Condition: This proposes that for a belief to be knowledge, the justification cannot be inferred from any false beliefs (or 'false lemmas'). This works well for Case I, where Smith's reasoning proceeded via the false belief that Jones would get the job. It is less effective against Case II, where it's not clear Smith used a false lemma in his simple logical deduction.
• Causal Theory (Alvin Goldman): This suggests that there must be an appropriate causal connection between the belief and the fact that makes it true. In the Gettier cases, the connection is coincidental, not causal.
• Reliabilism: This focuses on the process. Knowledge is a true belief formed by a reliable cognitive process. Smith's process of deducing from a false premise could be deemed unreliable.
• Defeasibility Theory: This states that the justification for a belief must be 'undefeatable.' That is, there must not be some other truth out there which, if the subject knew it, would defeat their present justification. In Case I, the truth "You, Smith, will get the job" would have defeated Smith's justification.

Browse public study notes