Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

[PeteOlcott]

So, if what APPEARS TO BE 'physical sensations', to you, and the correspondence between WHAT APPEARS TO BE 'physical sensations' and 'this model' (whatever model that IS, EXACTLY,) of 'the world' is at best conjecture that at least SEEMS TO BE VERY RELIABLE, to you, then WHAT is the ACTUAL ISSUE here, EXACTLY?

The Gettier problem is easily abolished by defining knowledge as the subset of
justified true beliefs such that the justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

ABOLISH the absolutely STUPID notion, term, and phrase 'justified true belief', then there is NO so-called 'problem' here AT ALL.

If one just does NOT have NOR hold a BELIEF, in the beginning, then there is NOTHING to TRY TO 'justify'.

See, if one just LOOKED AT ONLY 'that' what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, then they would NOT be just ASSUMING nor BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, which may in Fact NOT be AT ALL or PARTLY.

Those cases where the justification does not guarantee the truth of the belief,
yet provides some stochastic measure that the justification makes the belief very
plausible or highly likely are conjectures and not knowledge.

AGAIN, just ridding "one's" 'self' of BELIEFS here, RIDS ANY and ALL issues or problems here AS WELL.

It IS ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

It looks like we are in perfect agreement on this.
The way that I say this is that all beliefs are mind closing lies that we tell ourselves.
Beliefs are nothing more than emotional attachments to opinions.
It is far wiser to have only facts and theories with no beliefs in-between.

On the other hand professional epidemiologists anchor their whole foundation in
beliefs. I rectify this by construing their notion of beliefs as facts that one is aware of.

The part far too difficult for most is deriving from the set of what are commonly referred
to as facts from the subset of these that cannot possibly be false. In technical terms these
are called logical tautologies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Gettier problem is easily abolished by defining knowledge as the subset of
justified true beliefs such that the justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

Those cases where the justification does not guarantee the truth of the belief,
yet provides some stochastic measure that the justification makes the belief very
plausible or highly likely are conjectures and not knowledge.

The Gettier problem arose only for those who are dogmatically stuck with the Philosophical Realism ideology, i.e. reality [things] exist independent of the human mind.
Since Philosophical Realism is not realistic nor tenable, we should just ignored the Gettier Problem and deliberate on the term ''knowledge" that is effective for humanity's progress.

Knowledge or organized information of reality is imperative and critical for humanity's progress.
As such, we should maintain the term 'knowledge' to be defined a Justified True Belief and provide rational definition for "Justified" "True" & "Belief" within a anti-philosophical-realism mode.

From an anti-philosophical-realism mode,
All knowledge, facts or truths must be conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge[FSK] which is based on intersubjective consensus, thus Objective.

On this basis, there are degrees of objectivity of each knowledge based on the credibility and reliability of the FSK concerned.

At present, despite its limitations and weaknesses, pari-passu, the scientific FSK [Mathematics next to it] is the most credible and reliable. [anyone disagrees, provide argument for your choice].
The scientific FSK has the most reliable basis for verification and justification of empirical evidences to enable the emergence of knowledge.
What is true of scientific knowledge is conditioned upon its credibility and reliability without any need to mirror it against some absolute truth out there.

Scientific knowledge from a human-based scientific FSK do not have a Gettier problem at all.
It is undeniable, scientific knowledge had contributed and will contribute greatly to humanity's progress.

As such, knowledge as limited by Gettier Problem must be abandoned [for reasons stated] and the above, knowledge as Justified True Belief be accepted as the norm.

[Age]

The Gettier problem is easily abolished by defining knowledge as the subset of
justified true beliefs such that the justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

ABOLISH the absolutely STUPID notion, term, and phrase 'justified true belief', then there is NO so-called 'problem' here AT ALL.

If one just does NOT have NOR hold a BELIEF, in the beginning, then there is NOTHING to TRY TO 'justify'.

See, if one just LOOKED AT ONLY 'that' what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, then they would NOT be just ASSUMING nor BELIEVING some 'thing' to be true, which may in Fact NOT be AT ALL or PARTLY.

Those cases where the justification does not guarantee the truth of the belief,
yet provides some stochastic measure that the justification makes the belief very
plausible or highly likely are conjectures and not knowledge.

AGAIN, just ridding "one's" 'self' of BELIEFS here, RIDS ANY and ALL issues or problems here AS WELL.

It IS ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

It looks like we are in perfect agreement on this.
The way that I say this is that all beliefs are mind closing lies that we tell ourselves.
Beliefs are nothing more than emotional attachments to opinions.
It is far wiser to have only facts and theories with no beliefs in-between.

What I would and will say here is;
Some BELIEFS may end up being EXACTLY True, Right, and/or Correct. So, to me, SOME BELIEFS are NOT necessary 'lies' that 'you' tell "your" 'self', AT ALL. The issue with BELIEFS, however, is that, to me, while one is HOLDING ONTO a BELIEF, then they are NOT OPEN to FINDING OUT and SEEING what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, in relation to 'that BELIEF'.

On the other hand professional epidemiologists anchor their whole foundation in
beliefs.

WHY do you say and claim 'this' here?

I rectify this by construing their notion of beliefs as facts that one is aware of.

Why do these so-called "professional epidemiologists" have a SEPARATE 'notion of beliefs' from EVERY one "else"?

The part far too difficult for most is deriving from the set of what are commonly referred
to as facts from the subset of these that cannot possibly be false. In technical terms these
are called logical tautologies.

[Age]

The Gettier problem is easily abolished by defining knowledge as the subset of
justified true beliefs such that the justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

Those cases where the justification does not guarantee the truth of the belief,
yet provides some stochastic measure that the justification makes the belief very
plausible or highly likely are conjectures and not knowledge.

The Gettier problem arose only for those who are dogmatically stuck with the Philosophical Realism ideology, i.e. reality [things] exist independent of the human mind.
Since Philosophical Realism is not realistic nor tenable, we should just ignored the Gettier Problem and deliberate on the term ''knowledge" that is effective for humanity's progress.

BUT 'things' DO EXIST independent of 'you', human beings, OBVIOUSLY.

Knowledge or organized information of reality is imperative and critical for humanity's progress.

'Progress' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

As such, we should maintain the term 'knowledge' to be defined a Justified True Belief and provide rational definition for "Justified" "True" & "Belief" within a anti-philosophical-realism mode.[/quote]

So, in other words, lets add MORE ABSURDITY ONTO what is ALREADY ABSURD and ILLOGICAL.

From an anti-philosophical-realism mode,
All knowledge, facts or truths must be conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge[FSK] which is based on intersubjective consensus, thus Objective.

So, if two people agree on some 'thing', thus 'intersubjective consensus, to 'this' is thus 'Objective' right "veritas aequitas"?

And, the reason WHY 'you' will NOT ANSWER this QUESTION IS BECAUSE of the CONSEQUENCE that WILL FOLLOW.

On this basis, there are degrees of objectivity of each knowledge based on the credibility and reliability of the FSK concerned.

And, if some 'thing' is what you AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, then 'it' is credible and reliable, right, but conversely, if some 'thing' is NOT what you AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, then 'it' is untrustworthy and unreliable, correct? No matter how MUCH human based framework and system has gone into obtaining 'that knowledge or information'.

At present, despite its limitations and weaknesses, pari-passu, the scientific FSK [Mathematics next to it] is the most credible and reliable. [anyone disagrees, provide argument for your choice].

The symbols IN mathematics, when replaced with ACTUAL WORDS then does NOT necessarily work.

AND, the amount of times so-called 'scientific conclusions' that have ended up be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect is ENOUGH PROOF that this MADE UP phrase and term "scientific fsk" is NOT credible and NOT reliable.

The scientific FSK has the most reliable basis for verification and justification of empirical evidences to enable the emergence of knowledge.

Since there exists True AND False knowledge, Right AND Wrong knowledge, and Correct AND Incorrect knowledge ANY WAY knowledge EMERGES provides NO REAL guarantee either way. And, considering the AMOUNT of False, Wrong, and Incorrect knowledge that has EMERGED through and by 'science', itself, the Fact IS this MADE UP and SO-CALLED 'scientific fsk' is NOT one 'thing' ANY one would be ADVISED to RELY ON.

Even in the days when this is being written, a LOT of people in the 'scientific community' think or BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, just like a LOT thought or BELIEVED that the earth was in THE CENTER or the Universe, and that the earth IS FLAT.

These people 'TRY TO' "justify" their BELIEFS by CLAIMING 'science' and/or 'scientific processes' are the MOST credible and reliable. LOL how Wrong 'they' WERE, and STILL ARE, in the days when this is being written.

What is true of scientific knowledge is conditioned upon its credibility and reliability without any need to mirror it against some absolute truth out there.

False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, ONCE AGAIN, "veritas aequitas".

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the ABSOLUTE CIRCULAR REASONING, and thus just PLAIN OLD STUPIDITY, in SAYING and CLAIMING that 'scientific knowledge' is the most credible and reliable BECAUSE 'scientific knowledge' is conditioned upon ITS OWN credibility and reliability?

What we have here is A PRIME example of one BELIEVING some 'thing' is true AND 'confirmation bias' FROM 'that BELIEF'.

Scientific knowledge from a human-based scientific FSK do not have a Gettier problem at all.

LOL SAYING, 'scientific knowledge' from a 'human-based scientific (so-claimed and so-called) 'fsk' is ANOTHER ABSOLUTE STUPID and LUDICROUS CLAIM.

BESIDES from 'you', human beings, and ALL of YOUR systems and/or frameworks, WHERE ELSE COULD 'scientific knowledge' COME FROM, EXACTLY.

It is undeniable, scientific knowledge had contributed and will contribute greatly to humanity's progress.

'Progress' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

OF COURSE, 'scientific knowledge' has contributed to WHERE 'you', human beings, are, in the days when this is being written. But so to was ALL OTHER 'knowledge'.

As such, knowledge as limited by Gettier Problem must be abandoned [for reasons stated] and the above, knowledge as Justified True Belief be accepted as the norm.

The term and phrase 'justified true belief' could NOT provide MORE PROOF of just how STUPID human beings HAD BECOME.

[PeteOlcott]

I am just going to go with my original definition.
Knowledge is the set of fully justified true beliefs such that the
justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

This is not "belief" in the typical sense where the belief can possibly
be false. In this case {belief} only means truth that we are aware of.
This frames knowledge as the set of logical tautologies that form the
body of the analytic side of the analytic versus synthetic distinction.

If we have the most infinitesimal degree of less than 100% perfect
logically justified certainty then we do not have knowledge.

The model of the world such {cats are animals} is considered an
axiomatic system where 100% perfectly justified logical certainty
is guaranteed for all those things that are true by definition. This
will also include knowledge about things that are not true by definition,
yet these things themselves are not construed as knowledge.

To sum this up everything about anything that can be expressed using language
is the body of analytical knowledge. Logical tautologies that are true on the
basis of their meaning are direct knowledge and everything else that can be
expressed using language is indirect knowledge in that we can have ideas about
other things that are:
(a) {Possibly true} such as theories and conjectures and working hypotheses.
(b) {Pure fictions} that are not construed as possibly true

[Agent Smith]

Divine! PeteOlcott I hope you like the place (PNF) and will extend yer visa or perhaps apply for permanent residence or as they call it in America, a green card.

[PeteOlcott]

Divine! PeteOlcott I hope you like the place (PNF) and will extend yer visa or perhaps apply for permanent residence or as they call it in America, a green card.

They are talking about you on SE

Bot like random phrase comments
I have been seeing comments to questions from user @AgentSmith in this forum that seem unrelated to the question or other comments, and too nonsensical to me to appear like jokes.
https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.c ... e-comments

[Agent Smith]

Divine! PeteOlcott I hope you like the place (PNF) and will extend yer visa or perhaps apply for permanent residence or as they call it in America, a green card.

They are talking about you on SE

Bot like random phrase comments
I have been seeing comments to questions from user @AgentSmith in this forum that seem unrelated to the question or other comments, and too nonsensical to me to appear like jokes.
https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.c ... e-comments

Aah! Those ... comments! As I with uncharacteristic z/jest ... pointed out ... on another PNF page ... the probability of what usually happens every "century" on a (philosophy) forum will ... occur!! Has it?!

[fiveredapples]

We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.

You are doing philosophy backwards. We don't define what "knowledge" is and then determine which beliefs qualify as knowledge. What we do -- what Gettier did -- was to determine as best we can the general conception of knowledge, the conception applied by people. Gettier showed that the conception of "justified, true belief" doesn't work because it sometimes fails to accord with our conception of knowledge.

But even if your backwards philosophy was the way to do philosophy, your suggestion ("to define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification conclusively proves that the beleif is true") is loaded with epistemic terms that render it more useless than the original conception of "justified, true belief."

Saying "fully" does what philosophically? I'm assuming you simply mean what you go on to say later, namely that the 'justification' conclusively proves that the belief is true. In other words, "fully" is just redundant, so we can ignore it.

Saying that the justification "conclusively proves" anything is to misunderstand what justification is. Justification is not proof. This very basic fact is what motivates Gettier problems. In other words, because justification cannot prove, there is always the possibility that you can have justification, even very good justification, and yet you believe something false.

The only way you're not saying something patently false and contrary to the ordinary definition of words is if you are using "proves" in such a way that epistemic proofs don't imply or guarantee the truth of the belief. If this is your conception, then you're not adding anything to the original definiton of "justified, true belief." Thus, adding "fully" and "conclusively proves that the belief is true" to the original definition is just wordy and logically superfluous.

There are several objections we can make to Gettier examples and his conclusions (that is, his arguments), but you cannot solve the problems that Gettier highlights by turning justifcation into certainty. Knoweldge does not imply certainty, which is just a recognition that there is an epistemic limitation to our connection to the world -- at least that's the general conception of things. You can challenge this 'general conception', but you can't blame Gettier for its existence. He was simply pointing out the problems it poses for the conception of knowledge as justified, true belief.

[PeteOlcott]

We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.

You are doing philosophy backwards. We don't define what "knowledge" is and then determine which beliefs qualify as knowledge. What we do -- what Gettier did -- was to determine as best we can the general conception of knowledge, the conception applied by people. Gettier showed that the conception of "justified, true belief" doesn't work because it sometimes fails to accord with our conception of knowledge.

But even if your backwards philosophy was the way to do philosophy, your suggestion ("to define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification conclusively proves that the beleif is true") is loaded with epistemic terms that render it more useless than the original conception of "justified, true belief."

Saying "fully" does what philosophically? I'm assuming you simply mean what you go on to say later, namely that the 'justification' conclusively proves that the belief is true. In other words, "fully" is just redundant, so we can ignore it.

Saying that the justification "conclusively proves" anything is to misunderstand what justification is. Justification is not proof. This very basic fact is what motivates Gettier problems. In other words, because justification cannot prove, there is always the possibility that you can have justification, even very good justification, and yet you believe something false.

The only way you're not saying something patently false and contrary to the ordinary definition of words is if you are using "proves" in such a way that epistemic proofs don't imply or guarantee the truth of the belief. If this is your conception, then you're not adding anything to the original definiton of "justified, true belief." Thus, adding "fully" and "conclusively proves that the belief is true" to the original definition is just wordy and logically superfluous.

There are several objections we can make to Gettier examples and his conclusions (that is, his arguments), but you cannot solve the problems that Gettier highlights by turning justifcation into certainty. Knoweldge does not imply certainty, which is just a recognition that there is an epistemic limitation to our connection to the world -- at least that's the general conception of things. You can challenge this 'general conception', but you can't blame Gettier for its existence. He was simply pointing out the problems it poses for the conception of knowledge as justified, true belief.

We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.

You are doing philosophy backwards. We don't define what "knowledge" is and then determine which beliefs qualify as knowledge. What we do -- what Gettier did -- was to determine as best we can the general conception of knowledge, the conception applied by people. Gettier showed that the conception of "justified, true belief" doesn't work because it sometimes fails to accord with our conception of knowledge.

But even if your backwards philosophy was the way to do philosophy, your suggestion ("to define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification conclusively proves that the beleif is true") is loaded with epistemic terms that render it more useless than the original conception of "justified, true belief."

Saying "fully" does what philosophically? I'm assuming you simply mean what you go on to say later, namely that the 'justification' conclusively proves that the belief is true. In other words, "fully" is just redundant, so we can ignore it.

Saying that the justification "conclusively proves" anything is to misunderstand what justification is. Justification is not proof. This very basic fact is what motivates Gettier problems. In other words, because justification cannot prove, there is always the possibility that you can have justification, even very good justification, and yet you believe something false.

The only way you're not saying something patently false and contrary to the ordinary definition of words is if you are using "proves" in such a way that epistemic proofs don't imply or guarantee the truth of the belief. If this is your conception, then you're not adding anything to the original definiton of "justified, true belief." Thus, adding "fully" and "conclusively proves that the belief is true" to the original definition is just wordy and logically superfluous.

There are several objections we can make to Gettier examples and his conclusions (that is, his arguments), but you cannot solve the problems that Gettier highlights by turning justifcation into certainty. Knoweldge does not imply certainty, which is just a recognition that there is an epistemic limitation to our connection to the world -- at least that's the general conception of things. You can challenge this 'general conception', but you can't blame Gettier for its existence. He was simply pointing out the problems it poses for the conception of knowledge as justified, true belief.

Knowledge is truth that we are aware of and truth has its own epistemological validation. If we don't have a correct method of validation then it is incorrect to count beliefs as knowledge.

Because gullible fools do this 40% of the electorate was convinced that there was election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2020 election when there never was any evidence of this. The survival of Democracy (and the planet) depends on the correct definition of knowledge.

[Skepdick]

Knowledge is truth that we are aware of and truth has its own epistemological validation. If we don't have a correct method of validation then it is incorrect to count beliefs as knowledge.

Because gullible fools do this 40% of the electorate was convinced that there was election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2020 election when there never was any evidence of this. The survival of Democracy (and the planet) depends on the correct definition of knowledge.

Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

Something which you know to be true could've become false since the last time you checked.

This is cache expiration and invalidation 101 stuff.

[PeteOlcott]

The Gettier problem only arises because knowledge is not defined with a sufficient connection between the justification and truth of the belief. As soon as knowledge is defined such that the justification guarantees the truth of the belief the Gettier problem cannot exist. This always works perfectly for all analytical knowledge.

We could weaken this connection for empirical knowledge and say that the justification is a sufficient reason to conclude that the belief is true. In the Gettier cases the justification is usually insufficient.

[Age]

Knowledge is truth that we are aware of and truth has its own epistemological validation. If we don't have a correct method of validation then it is incorrect to count beliefs as knowledge.

Because gullible fools do this 40% of the electorate was convinced that there was election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2020 election when there never was any evidence of this. The survival of Democracy (and the planet) depends on the correct definition of knowledge.

Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

Something which you know to be true could've become false since the last time you checked.

This is cache expiration and invalidation 101 stuff.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' are MISTAKING 'think' with 'know' here "skepdick".

But, THEN AGAIN, BECAUSE 'you' are NOT ABLE TO DEFINE those words, 'you' would NOT 'KNOW" the DIFFERENCE ANYWAY.

[Skepdick]

Knowledge is truth that we are aware of and truth has its own epistemological validation. If we don't have a correct method of validation then it is incorrect to count beliefs as knowledge.

Because gullible fools do this 40% of the electorate was convinced that there was election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2020 election when there never was any evidence of this. The survival of Democracy (and the planet) depends on the correct definition of knowledge.

Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

Something which you know to be true could've become false since the last time you checked.

This is cache expiration and invalidation 101 stuff.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' are MISTAKING 'think' with 'know' here "skepdick".

But, THEN AGAIN, BECAUSE 'you' are NOT ABLE TO DEFINE those words, 'you' would NOT 'KNOW" the DIFFERENCE ANYWAY.

I don't need to define the word "idiot" to know how to use it.

Age, you are an idiot

[Age]

I am just going to go with my original definition.
Knowledge is the set of fully justified true beliefs such that the
justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

This is not "belief" in the typical sense where the belief can possibly
be false.

When you here say, 'typical sense', who and/or what is 'this typical sense', in relation to, EXACTLY?

Does NOT the 'belief' word align MORE with the 'believe' word than 'it' would with what is 'false'?

Are 'you' here suggesting that when you say, 'I believe ... .', then I am to take 'this' that what you BELIEVE ... is true, could possibly BE 'false' ANYWAY?

In this case {belief} only means truth that we are aware of.
This frames knowledge as the set of logical tautologies that form the
body of the analytic side of the analytic versus synthetic distinction.

If we have the most infinitesimal degree of less than 100% perfect
logically justified certainty then we do not have knowledge.

The model of the world such {cats are animals} is considered an
axiomatic system where 100% perfectly justified logical certainty
is guaranteed for all those things that are true by definition.

Just out of CURIOSITY do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

If, and WHEN, you DO, then you ALSO KNOW, with 100% CERTAINTY, what IS and what IS NOT ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

This will also include knowledge about things that are not true by definition,
yet these things themselves are not construed as knowledge.

To sum this up everything about anything that can be expressed using language
is the body of analytical knowledge. Logical tautologies that are true on the
basis of their meaning are direct knowledge and everything else that can be
expressed using language is indirect knowledge in that we can have ideas about
other things that are:
(a) {Possibly true} such as theories and conjectures and working hypotheses.
(b) {Pure fictions} that are not construed as possibly true

Well 'all-of-this' just comes down to just KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'KNOWING' and 'thinking'.