Synthese

, Volume 188, Issue 2, pp 217–230

The Gettier-illusion: Gettier-partialism and infallibilism

Article

Abstract

Could the standard interpretation of Gettier cases reflect a fundamental confusion? Indeed so. How well can epistemologists argue for the truth of that standard interpretation? Not so well. A methodological mistake is allowing them not to notice how they are simply (and inappropriately) being infallibilists when regarding Gettiered beliefs as failing to be knowledge. There is no Gettier problem that we have not merely created for ourselves by unwittingly being infallibilists about knowledge.

Keywords

Gettier cases Knowledge Safety Gettier Duncan Pritchard Justified true belief Infallibilism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chisholm R. M. (1966) Theory of knowledge. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chisholm R. M. (1977) Theory of knowledge. 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chisholm R. M. (1989) Theory of knowledge. 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fantl J., McGrath M. (2009) Knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford University Press, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gettier E. L. (1963) Is justified true belief knowledge?. Analysis 23: 121–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldman A. I. (1976) Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 73: 771–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gutting G. (2009) What philosophers know: Case studies in recent analytic philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heller M. (1999) The proper role for contextualism in an anti-luck epistemology. Philosophical Perspectives 13: 115–129Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hetherington S. (1999) Knowing failably. The Journal of Philosophy 96: 565–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hetherington S. (2001) Good knowledge, bad knowledge: On two dogmas of epistemology. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hetherington S. (2010) The Gettier non-problem. Logos and Episteme 1: 85–107Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hetherington S. (2011a) Abnormality and Gettier situations: An explanatory proposal. Ratio 24: 176–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hetherington, S. (2011b). How to know: A practicalist conception of knowledge. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Howard-Snyder D., Howard-Snyder F., Feit N. (2003) Infallibilism and Gettier’s legacy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66: 304–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lackey J. (2008) What luck is not. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86: 255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis D. K. (1968) Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. The Journal of Philosophy 65: 113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis D. (1996) Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pritchard D. (2005) Epistemic luck. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pritchard D. (2009) Knowledge. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quine W. V. O. (1960) Word and object. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schaffer J. (2005) Contrastive knowledge. In: Hawthorne J., Gendler T. (eds) Oxford studies in epistemology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 235–271Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sosa E. (2007) A virtue epistemology: Apt belief and reflective knowledge. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Unger P. (1968) An analysis of factual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 65: 157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williamson T. (2007) The philosophy of philosophy. Blackwell, Malden, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations