Knowledge, the Structure of Justification, and Theories of True

Christopher L. Holland
christopher.holland@slu.edu

Saint Louis University

February 25, 2025

What is Knowledge?

Classic Definition of Knowledge: Justified True Belief (JTB)

The Gettier Problem

Gettier’s Counterexample to JTB

  • Two men, Smith and Jones apply for the same job.
  • Smith forms Belief A: “Jones will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket.”
  • Smith’s belief is based on the following evidence:
    1. The company president told Smith that Jones would get the job.
    2. Just a few minutes ago, Smith counted the coins in Jones’s pocket.
  • From Belief A, Smith infers Belief B: “The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.”

Gettier’s Counterexample to JTB

Meanwhile . . .

  • The company president lied and plans to give Smith the job instead of Jones—then does so.
  • Unbeknownst to Smith, he also has ten coins in his pocket.

Gettier’s Counterexample to JTB

Belief A: “Jones will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket.”

So, according to the classic definition of knowledge, did Smith know Belief A?

  • Was Belief A justified?
    Yes, because Smith had good reasons for believing it.
  • Was Belief A true?
    No, because Jones did not end up getting the job.
  • So, did Smith know Belief A?
    No, Belief A was a justified false belief.

Gettier’s Counterexample to JTB

Belief B: “The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.”

So, according to the classic definition of knowledge, did Smith know Belief B?

  • Was Belief B justified?
    Yes, the same justification he had for Belief A.
  • Was Belief B true?
    Yes, the man who got the job had ten coins in his pocket.
  • So, did Smith know Belief B?
    Yes, Belief B was a justified true belief.

SOMETHING’S GONE WRONG!

A Simpler Gettier Case:
Bertrand Russell’s Clock Example

  • It is 3 o’clock.
  • A broken analog clock on the wall reads 3 o’clock.
  • Smith does not know the clock is broken.
  • Smith reads the clock and forms Belief C: “It is 3 o’clock.”

Bertrand Russell’s Clock Example

Belief C: “It is 3 o’clock.”

According to the classical definition of knowledge does Smith know Belief C?

  • Is Belief C justified?
    Yes, because in the thought experiment Smith has a good reason for Belief C. He believes it because the clock says that it is 3 o’clock.
  • Is Belief C true?
    Yes, in the thought experiment it is 3 o’clock.

But, does Smith really know that it is 3 o’clock?

 
 
 
 
 

SOMETHING’S GONE WRONG!

Responding to Gettier Cases

  • Lucky Knowing
  • JTB +
  • TB +

Responding to Gettier Cases: Lucky Knowing

Reject Gettier Counterexamples and retain the classic definition of knowledge.

Responding to Gettier Cases: JTB +

Accept Gettier Counterexamples but add a fourth necessary condition for knowledge.

  • No False Lemmas: JTB + justification cannot include false beliefs
  • Undefeated JTB: JTB + no defeaters

Responding to Gettier Cases: TB +

Accept Gettier Counterexamples but replace “justification” with some other standard.

  • Causal Theory of Knowledge: TB + to know that \(P\), your belief that \(P\) must be caused by \(P\)
  • Reliabilism: TB + a reliable belief forming process and environment
  • Truth Tracking Theory of Knowledge: TB + Sensitivity and Adherence

Responding to Gettier Cases: TB +

Accept Gettier Counterexamples but replace “justification” with some other standard.

  • Truth Tracking Theory of Knowledge: TB + Sensitivity and Adherence
    • Sensitivity: If \(P\) weren’t true, then you wouldn’t have believed \(P\)
    • Adherence: If \(P\) were true, then you would believe that \(P\).

The Structure of Justification

Coherentism

A persons beliefs should be “coherent”

Coherent beliefs are

  1. Consistent (they do not contradict each other)
  2. Mutually supportive. Your beliefs should support one another. Each of belief is justified by the way it fits within your larger system of beliefs.

If you beliefs are consistent and mutually supportive, then you have achieved Reflective Equilibrium.

Weak and Strong Coherentism

Weak Coherentism
Coherence is necessary for justification. If my belief is justified, then it coheres with my other beliefs.
 
Strong Coherentism
Coherence is both necessary and sufficient for justification. My belief is justified if, and only if, it coheres with my other beliefs.

Problems with Strong Coherentism:

  • The Isolation Problem: There could be many different coherent belief sets.
  • What about self-evident truths of reason?
    • \(2+2=4\)
    • I think therefore I am
    • The laws of logic

Foundationalism

In addition to being coherent and a persons believes should be justified (directly or indirectly) by properly basic beliefs.

Justified beliefs are either basic or nonbasic.

  • Basic beliefs are foundational, they are not justified on other beliefs
  • Nonbasic beliefs are beliefs justified (directly or indirectly) by basic beliefs.
  • Properly basic beliefs are not justified on other beliefs but meet some other requirement (e.g., indubitability)

Strong Foundationalism

  • Properly basic beliefs are either sensory belief or truths of reason (a priori knowledge).
  • Properly basic beliefs are indubitable (like “I think therefore I am”).

Problems for Strong Foundationalism:

  • Is the principle that all beliefs are either indubitable or nonbasic a basic belief?
  • Can we derive the principle that all beliefs are either indubitable or nonbasic from indubitable beliefs?

Weak Foundationalism

  • Properly basic beliefs include sensory belief or truths of reason (a priori knowledge).
  • But weak foundationalism also allows for beliefs formed in a basic but “reliable way.”
    • I believe there is a window over there because my visual processes are reliable.
    • I believe I ate breakfast this morning because my memory processes are reliable.

Truth

Correspondence Theory of Truth

  • Classic definition from Aristotle: “To say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”
  • Truth is a relationship held between a proposition and reality.
  • A proposition is true if, and only if, it corresponds to reality.
  • A proposition is false if, and only if, it does not correspond to reality.
  • The correspondence theory is a metaphysical theory of truth.

Coherence Theory of Truth

  • Truth is a relationship held between propositions and other propositions.
  • A proposition is true if, and only if, it coheres with a particular set of propositions.
  • The coherence theory is an epistemological theory of truth.

Pragmatic Theory of Truth

 

‘The true,’ to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as ‘the right’ is only the expedient in the way of our behaving.

 — William James

Pragmatic Theory of Truth

  • A belief is true if, and only if, it works or is useful to have.
  • Non-epistemic Pragmatism:
    • A belief is true if and only if it is beneficial to have.
  • Epistemic Pragmatism
    • Truth is the end of inquiry (i.e., views which we can no longer improve)
    • Truth is what an ideally rational community with all the relevant evidence would accept.

Post-Modernism

  • Not a single view, but a family of related views.
  • Common characteristics include:
    • Reality is a social construction.
    • Rejection of the correspondence theory of truth
    • Rejection of foundationalism
    • Rejection of meta-narratives

References

Bertrand Russell. 1998. The Problems of Philosophy. Vol. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gettier, Edmund L. 1963. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23 (6): 121–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3326922.
James, William. (1907) 1975. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McDermid, Douglas. n.d. “Pragmatism.” In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed October 4, 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/pragmati/.
Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. 2017. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.