Thesis utm 2007

In each of Gettier’s original cases, there is a true proposition unbeknownst to Smith such that were that proposition added to the rest of Smith’s evidence, Smith would no longer be justified in believing the Gettiered belief. Call such a proposition a defeater . In Case I, the defeater is the true proposition that Nelson will not get the job [~ N ]. If ~ N were added to Smith’s evidence, Smith would not be justified in believing that the person who will get the job has ten coins in her pocket, for she would no longer have any idea who will get the job. In Case II, the defeater is the true proposition that Jones does not own a Ford [~ J ]. Since Smith has no knowledge as to Brown’s whereabouts, if ~ J were added to Smith’s evidence, she would no longer be justified in believing that J or B . Notice, however, that in the case of Café (where Smith is with Brown in Barcelona), the true proposition ~ J is not a defeater, because adding ~ J to Smith’s evidence in Café would not prevent Smith from being justified in believing that J or B . Smith would still be justified in believing J or B on the basis of her justified true belief that B .

Thesis utm 2007

thesis utm 2007

Media:

thesis utm 2007thesis utm 2007thesis utm 2007thesis utm 2007