Diotima: The Marist Undergraduate Philosophy Journal
Let us consider the example provided by Gettier himself, with Smith and Jones applying for the job. Upon application of the necessary test, it becomes clear that Smith relied on a necessary false belief in reaching his conclusion, namely, that Jones would be hired for the job. Without being convinced Jones had the position secured, he would have never assumed the proposition that the man who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket. Hence, he relied on a necessary false belief. Therefore, due to this dependence serving as a sufficient condition for lack of knowledge, Smith failed to achieve knowledge of the stated conclusion, rendering my proposed solution consistent with our intuition. Since every Gettier problem hinges on the agent's reliance on necessary false belief, each agent will inevitably fail to know. Therefore, the classical analysis of knowledge is salvaged upon this additional component, with justified true belief, plus the preclusion of the necessary reliance, jointly guaranteeing knowledge. Nagel provides an analogy that synopsizes this approach, “Perhaps achieving knowledge is like crossing a wooden bridge, where stepping on one rotten plank on the way across will make you fall short of the goal.” 6 Barring reliance on necessary false beliefs, my solution ensures that every step is sound in the quest for knowledge. Where S stands for a subject and P for any proposition, my argument is represented in standard form as follows: 1. In all Gettier Cases, S relies on a necessary false belief in concluding P. 2. If S relies on a necessary false belief in concluding P, then S doesn’t know P. 3. Therefore, in all Gettier cases, S doesn’t know P.
66 Nagel, The Analysis of Knowledge , 46-59.
Volume VIII (2025) 57
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker