Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

[mickthinks]

I think the OP has missed the point. The problem is not how to define knowledge after Gettier. The problem is whether or not anything of JTB is salvageable after Gettier.

There are broadly two schools of thought; those that think Gettier has demonstrated that JTB should be consigned to the bin, and those that think that Gettier is just a technicality and that all that's needed is a JTB 2.0

PeteOlcott is clearly in the latter camp.

[PeteOlcott]

I think the OP has missed the point. The problem is not how to define knowledge after Gettier. The problem is whether or not anything of JTB is salvageable after Gettier.

There are broadly two schools of thought; those that think Gettier has demonstrated that JTB should be consigned to the bin, and those that think that Gettier is just a technicality and that all that's needed is a JTB 2.0

PeteOlcott is clearly in the latter camp.

Not at all. I merely used JTB because that is the current received view. I have always known that beliefs tend to be nothing more than the bias of emotional attachments to opinions. When we remove the bias of emotional attachment the {belief} is transformed into a {hypothesis}. Even a hypothesis is uncertain thus has no place in any definition of knowledge.

First rough draft: Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.

[Age]

The Gettier problem, in the field of epistemology, is a landmark philosophical problem concerning the understanding of descriptive knowledge. Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier, Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

What IS the supposed 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word?

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

SO, to 'you', the so-called and supposed 'conventional epistemological DEFINITION' of and for the word 'knowledge' IS:

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

correct?

By the way, the three words 'justified', 'true', and 'belief', USED in the order which 'you' have SHOWN here is A(nother) 'term', which WHEN LOOKED AT and INTO FULLY IS JUST NONSENSE.

Now, EITHER some 'thing' IS KNOWN to be true, or just THOUGHT to be true.

1. If 'it' IS KNOWN to be true, then 'it' IS an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

2. If 'it' is THOUGHT to be true, then 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true.

So, JUST LEARN, and KNOW, the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the two words 'know' AND 'thought', and then a LOT of terms like 'you' ARE USING above here become Truly REDUNDANT, like 'they' BEST BE.

[Age]

If you ask me whether or not I know how to bake a cake and I provide the
complete recipe and all of the steps for baking a cake, yes should be inferred.

But you have NOT YET provided the complete ANY 'thing' here.

Do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

This is ALL there is to it!
Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.

REMEMBER it IS 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, who HAVE TROUBLE AND ISSUES COMING-TO-AGREEMENT. What is written here, in 'red', IS one of the REASONS WHY.

'Certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM SOMEWHERE, EXACTLY.

Which, by the way, IS EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to FIND the ANSWER TO. IN Fact the WAY to FIND the ANSWER IS IN the ANSWER. So, what 'this' MEANS IS that when one LEARNS, or DISCOVERS, and KNOWS the ANSWER, then they WILL SEE HOW the ANSWER has ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT HERE, BEFORE 'them'.

[Age]

I think the OP has missed the point. The problem is not how to define knowledge after Gettier. The problem is whether or not anything of JTB is salvageable after Gettier.

There are broadly two schools of thought; those that think Gettier has demonstrated that JTB should be consigned to the bin, and those that think that Gettier is just a technicality and that all that's needed is a JTB 2.0

PeteOlcott is clearly in the latter camp.

'justified true belief' is just a VERY CLUMSILY written term, which would have BETTER been binned from 'its' outset.

What is 'justified true belief' MEANT TO MEAN anyway?

one HAS a 'belief', which they then found out IS ACTUALLY 'true', and thus WAS 'justified'?

Surely, one does NOT, FIRST, find out some 'thing' IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY 'true', THEN have a 'belief' in that 'thing', and then CLAIM MY 'belief' IS 'justified'?

Or, ANY of the OTHER completely RIDICULOUS WAYS of LOOKING AT 'this'.

OR, if there is some 'thing' that I AM MISSING here in regards to the so-called 'justified true belief' term, then PLEASE INFORM me of what 'it' IS, EXACTLY.

What does 'that term' even MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

[Age]

I think the OP has missed the point. The problem is not how to define knowledge after Gettier. The problem is whether or not anything of JTB is salvageable after Gettier.

There are broadly two schools of thought; those that think Gettier has demonstrated that JTB should be consigned to the bin, and those that think that Gettier is just a technicality and that all that's needed is a JTB 2.0

PeteOlcott is clearly in the latter camp.

Not at all. I merely used JTB because that is the current received view. I have always known that beliefs tend to be nothing more than the bias of emotional attachments to opinions. When we remove the bias of emotional attachment the {belief} is transformed into a {hypothesis}. Even a hypothesis is uncertain thus has no place in any definition of knowledge.

First rough draft: Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.

GREAT, I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work WITH 'this one'.

So, the word 'knowledge' here, for now, means; the set of expressions of language that 'we' are aware of as true.

'We' just need to work out who and/or what the 'we' word is referring to, exactly, first, then 'we' can proceed, from here.

By the way, 'this definition' of the 'knowledge' word is, well to me anyway, FAR, FAR BETTER than 'that one' that 'you' provided in 'red' before.

[PeteOlcott]

What IS the supposed 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word?

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

SO, to 'you', the so-called and supposed 'conventional epistemological DEFINITION' of and for the word 'knowledge' IS:

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

correct?

By the way, the three words 'justified', 'true', and 'belief', USED in the order which 'you' have SHOWN here is A(nother) 'term', which WHEN LOOKED AT and INTO FULLY IS JUST NONSENSE.

Now, EITHER some 'thing' IS KNOWN to be true, or just THOUGHT to be true.

1. If 'it' IS KNOWN to be true, then 'it' IS an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

2. If 'it' is THOUGHT to be true, then 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true.

So, JUST LEARN, and KNOW, the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the two words 'know' AND 'thought', and then a LOT of terms like 'you' ARE USING above here become Truly REDUNDANT, like 'they' BEST BE.

I have rejected the notion of belief decades ago yet "Gettier-cases" depend on the notion of a justified true belief.

My original answer directly addresses this:
Knowledge is justified true belief such that the justification make the belief necessarily true. This tweaking of the original definition utterly eliminates "Gettier-cases"

[PeteOlcott]

I think the OP has missed the point. The problem is not how to define knowledge after Gettier. The problem is whether or not anything of JTB is salvageable after Gettier.

There are broadly two schools of thought; those that think Gettier has demonstrated that JTB should be consigned to the bin, and those that think that Gettier is just a technicality and that all that's needed is a JTB 2.0

PeteOlcott is clearly in the latter camp.

Not at all. I merely used JTB because that is the current received view. I have always known that beliefs tend to be nothing more than the bias of emotional attachments to opinions. When we remove the bias of emotional attachment the {belief} is transformed into a {hypothesis}. Even a hypothesis is uncertain thus has no place in any definition of knowledge.

First rough draft: Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.

GREAT, I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work WITH 'this one'.

So, the word 'knowledge' here, for now, means; the set of expressions of language that 'we' are aware of as true.

'We' just need to work out who and/or what the 'we' word is referring to, exactly, first, then 'we' can proceed, from here.

By the way, 'this definition' of the 'knowledge' word is, well to me anyway, FAR, FAR BETTER than 'that one' that 'you' provided in 'red' before.

Everyone that is aware of the truth of elements of a set of true expressions has knowledge of these expressions.

[PeteOlcott]

But you have NOT YET provided the complete ANY 'thing' here.

Do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

This is ALL there is to it!
Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.

REMEMBER it IS 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, who HAVE TROUBLE AND ISSUES COMING-TO-AGREEMENT. What is written here, in 'red', IS one of the REASONS WHY.

'Certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM SOMEWHERE, EXACTLY.

Which, by the way, IS EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to FIND the ANSWER TO. IN Fact the WAY to FIND the ANSWER IS IN the ANSWER. So, what 'this' MEANS IS that when one LEARNS, or DISCOVERS, and KNOWS the ANSWER, then they WILL SEE HOW the ANSWER has ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT HERE, BEFORE 'them'.

It took me many years to derive that notion of truth. When we use that notion of truth as the basis then Tarski Undefinability and Gödel incompleteness utterly cease to exist.

True(L,x) is either an expression of language that has been stipulated to be true such as {cats are animals} or an expression deduced from these expressions.

True and unprovable cannot exist because True(L,x) x is either an axiom or deduced from axioms. The proof that an axiom is true is simply that it is an axiom. Within the sound deductive inference model neither incompleteness nor undefinability can possibly exist.

[Age]

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

SO, to 'you', the so-called and supposed 'conventional epistemological DEFINITION' of and for the word 'knowledge' IS:

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

correct?

By the way, the three words 'justified', 'true', and 'belief', USED in the order which 'you' have SHOWN here is A(nother) 'term', which WHEN LOOKED AT and INTO FULLY IS JUST NONSENSE.

Now, EITHER some 'thing' IS KNOWN to be true, or just THOUGHT to be true.

1. If 'it' IS KNOWN to be true, then 'it' IS an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

2. If 'it' is THOUGHT to be true, then 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true.

So, JUST LEARN, and KNOW, the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the two words 'know' AND 'thought', and then a LOT of terms like 'you' ARE USING above here become Truly REDUNDANT, like 'they' BEST BE.

I have rejected the notion of belief decades ago yet "Gettier-cases" depend on the notion of a justified true belief.

The 'expansion of the Universe case' depends on the notion of 'red shift' MEANING some 'thing'. But SO WHAT?

OBVIOUSLY what 'the notion of a red shift' IS CLAIMED to MEAN IS False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, just like 'the notion of a justified true belief' IS CLAIMED to MEAN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. So, WHY NOT just LET 'that ABSURD notion' GO?

If 'you' KEEP BRINGING UP 'that notion', like in an opening post, then 'that notion' REMAINS ALIVE.

However, IF some one "else" BRINGS 'that notion' UP, then just Correct 'them' with A 'sound AND valid argument'.

My original answer directly addresses this:
Knowledge is justified true belief such that the justification make the belief necessarily true. This tweaking of the original definition utterly eliminates "Gettier-cases"

IF 'you' have, SUPPOSEDLY, ALREADY REJECTED the 'notion of' BELIEF, then WHY BOTHER talking ABOUT 'it' as those 'it' has some importance here?

'A notion' of ANY so-called 'justified true belief' IS just an OBVIOUSLY ABSURD 'notion'. So, just let 'it' DIE OUT, WHERE 'it' ACTUALLY BELONGS. 'it' WOULD HAVE ALREADY 'DIED OUT' IF people HAD STOPPED BRING 'it' UP AGAIN and AGAIN.

[Age]

Not at all. I merely used JTB because that is the current received view. I have always known that beliefs tend to be nothing more than the bias of emotional attachments to opinions. When we remove the bias of emotional attachment the {belief} is transformed into a {hypothesis}. Even a hypothesis is uncertain thus has no place in any definition of knowledge.

First rough draft: Knowledge is the set of expressions of language that we are aware of as true.

GREAT, I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work WITH 'this one'.

So, the word 'knowledge' here, for now, means; the set of expressions of language that 'we' are aware of as true.

'We' just need to work out who and/or what the 'we' word is referring to, exactly, first, then 'we' can proceed, from here.

By the way, 'this definition' of the 'knowledge' word is, well to me anyway, FAR, FAR BETTER than 'that one' that 'you' provided in 'red' before.

Everyone that is aware of the truth of elements of a set of true expressions has knowledge of these expressions.

Okay, and I agree.

But I also SEE a LOT of people CLAIMING to HAVE 'the knowledge of things', but REALLY HAVE just a False, Wrong, or Incorrect 'perception or notion of things'.

So, what is 'it' that 'you' REALLY WANT TO ACHIEVE or ACCOMPLISH here, EXACTLY?

[Age]

This is ALL there is to it!
Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.

REMEMBER it IS 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, who HAVE TROUBLE AND ISSUES COMING-TO-AGREEMENT. What is written here, in 'red', IS one of the REASONS WHY.

'Certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM SOMEWHERE, EXACTLY.

Which, by the way, IS EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to FIND the ANSWER TO. IN Fact the WAY to FIND the ANSWER IS IN the ANSWER. So, what 'this' MEANS IS that when one LEARNS, or DISCOVERS, and KNOWS the ANSWER, then they WILL SEE HOW the ANSWER has ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT HERE, BEFORE 'them'.

It took me many years to derive that notion of truth. When we use that notion of truth as the basis then Tarski Undefinability and Gödel incompleteness utterly cease to exist.

True(L,x) is either an expression of language that has been stipulated to be true such as {cats are animals} or an expression deduced from these expressions.

True and unprovable cannot exist because True(L,x) x is either an axiom or deduced from axioms. The proof that an axiom is true is simply that it is an axiom. Within the sound deductive inference model neither incompleteness nor undefinability can possibly exist.

From what I am SEEING and OBSERVING here 'you' are JUST COMPLICATING and MAKING HARD 'that', which IS ESSENTIALLY JUST VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

By the way, the ACTUAL PROOF that ANY 'thing', including ANY 'axiom', IS True is NOT just 'simply that 'it' is an axiom' AT ALL.

The 'proof' of ANY and EVERY 'thing' LIES WITHIN the EXACT SAME 'thing' as 'knowing', (or 'knowledge' if one likes), 'certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM, and ARE FOUND, EXACTLY.

[PeteOlcott]

SO, to 'you', the so-called and supposed 'conventional epistemological DEFINITION' of and for the word 'knowledge' IS:

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

correct?

By the way, the three words 'justified', 'true', and 'belief', USED in the order which 'you' have SHOWN here is A(nother) 'term', which WHEN LOOKED AT and INTO FULLY IS JUST NONSENSE.

Now, EITHER some 'thing' IS KNOWN to be true, or just THOUGHT to be true.

1. If 'it' IS KNOWN to be true, then 'it' IS an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

2. If 'it' is THOUGHT to be true, then 'it' MAY or MAY NOT be true.

So, JUST LEARN, and KNOW, the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between the two words 'know' AND 'thought', and then a LOT of terms like 'you' ARE USING above here become Truly REDUNDANT, like 'they' BEST BE.

I have rejected the notion of belief decades ago yet "Gettier-cases" depend on the notion of a justified true belief.

The 'expansion of the Universe case' depends on the notion of 'red shift' MEANING some 'thing'. But SO WHAT?

OBVIOUSLY what 'the notion of a red shift' IS CLAIMED to MEAN IS False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, just like 'the notion of a justified true belief' IS CLAIMED to MEAN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. So, WHY NOT just LET 'that ABSURD notion' GO?

If 'you' KEEP BRINGING UP 'that notion', like in an opening post, then 'that notion' REMAINS ALIVE.

However, IF some one "else" BRINGS 'that notion' UP, then just Correct 'them' with A 'sound AND valid argument'.

My original answer directly addresses this:
Knowledge is justified true belief such that the justification make the belief necessarily true. This tweaking of the original definition utterly eliminates "Gettier-cases"

IF 'you' have, SUPPOSEDLY, ALREADY REJECTED the 'notion of' BELIEF, then WHY BOTHER talking ABOUT 'it' as those 'it' has some importance here?

So that it is dead obvious that I directly addressed the Gettier cases and have not simply changed the subject to something else.

[PeteOlcott]

GREAT, I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work WITH 'this one'.

So, the word 'knowledge' here, for now, means; the set of expressions of language that 'we' are aware of as true.

'We' just need to work out who and/or what the 'we' word is referring to, exactly, first, then 'we' can proceed, from here.

By the way, 'this definition' of the 'knowledge' word is, well to me anyway, FAR, FAR BETTER than 'that one' that 'you' provided in 'red' before.

Everyone that is aware of the truth of elements of a set of true expressions has knowledge of these expressions.

Okay, and I agree.

But I also SEE a LOT of people CLAIMING to HAVE 'the knowledge of things', but REALLY HAVE just a False, Wrong, or Incorrect 'perception or notion of things'.

So, what is 'it' that 'you' REALLY WANT TO ACHIEVE or ACCOMPLISH here, EXACTLY?

To define the notion of analytical Truth correctly [the way that it really is] such that the Tarski Undefinability theorem is refuted and automated reasoning systems can consistently divide expressions of language that are true from those that are false or have unknown truth values.

[PeteOlcott]

REMEMBER it IS 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, who HAVE TROUBLE AND ISSUES COMING-TO-AGREEMENT. What is written here, in 'red', IS one of the REASONS WHY.

'Certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM SOMEWHERE, EXACTLY.

Which, by the way, IS EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to FIND the ANSWER TO. IN Fact the WAY to FIND the ANSWER IS IN the ANSWER. So, what 'this' MEANS IS that when one LEARNS, or DISCOVERS, and KNOWS the ANSWER, then they WILL SEE HOW the ANSWER has ALWAYS BEEN RIGHT HERE, BEFORE 'them'.

It took me many years to derive that notion of truth. When we use that notion of truth as the basis then Tarski Undefinability and Gödel incompleteness utterly cease to exist.

True(L,x) is either an expression of language that has been stipulated to be true such as {cats are animals} or an expression deduced from these expressions.

True and unprovable cannot exist because True(L,x) x is either an axiom or deduced from axioms. The proof that an axiom is true is simply that it is an axiom. Within the sound deductive inference model neither incompleteness nor undefinability can possibly exist.

From what I am SEEING and OBSERVING here 'you' are JUST COMPLICATING and MAKING HARD 'that', which IS ESSENTIALLY JUST VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

By the way, the ACTUAL PROOF that ANY 'thing', including ANY 'axiom', IS True is NOT just 'simply that 'it' is an axiom' AT ALL.

The 'proof' of ANY and EVERY 'thing' LIES WITHIN the EXACT SAME 'thing' as 'knowing', (or 'knowledge' if one likes), 'certainty', 'truth', AND 'definitions' COME FROM, and ARE FOUND, EXACTLY.

The only way that we know that the finite string "cats are animals" is true is that it is an axiom of English. From this and other similar axioms we can deduce other expressions that are a sound deductive inference from these axioms.