Navigation
Understanding the 'Justified True Belief' model and why lucky guesses aren't knowledge.
If you guess the score of a football game correctly before it even starts, did you actually 'know' the outcome, or were you just lucky?
Let's apply the JTB formula to a simple situation: 1. Belief: You think it is raining outside. 2. Truth: You look out the window and see water falling from the sky; it is actually raining. 3. Justification: Your evidence is your visual observation (Empiricism). Since all three are present, you know it is raining.
Quick Check
If you believe something that is actually false, can it be considered knowledge under the JTB model?
Answer
No, because the 'Truth' component is missing.
Not all reasons are created equal. To turn a true belief into knowledge, your justification must be reliable. Philosophers usually look for three main types of evidence. Empiricism is justification through your senses (seeing, hearing, touching). Rationalism is justification through logic and math, such as knowing that . Finally, Authority is justification through reliable sources, like a science textbook or a doctor. A 'hunch' or a 'feeling' is generally considered a weak justification because it isn't based on repeatable evidence or logical steps.
Consider this scenario to test the strength of justification: 1. You walk into a room and look at a wall clock. It says 12:00 PM. 2. You believe it is 12:00 PM. 3. In reality, it is exactly 12:00 PM. 4. However, the clock has been broken for two days. In this case, you have a True Belief, but your Justification (a broken clock) is flawed. Therefore, you didn't actually know the time; you were just lucky.
Quick Check
Which type of justification are you using when you solve a geometry proof?
Answer
Rationalism (Logic/Math).
For centuries, JTB was the gold standard for defining knowledge. But in 1963, a philosopher named Edmund Gettier shook the world of philosophy. He created scenarios, now called Gettier Cases, where someone has a Justified True Belief, but it still feels like they don't actually 'know' the thing. These cases usually involve a bit of 'double luck'—where your justification is actually based on a mistake, but you happen to be right anyway. This suggests that our definition of knowledge might need a fourth ingredient, or a much stricter rule for what counts as 'justification.'
This is a classic Gettier-style challenge: 1. You look into a field and see a fluffy white shape. You say, 'There is a sheep in that field.' 2. You are right! There is a sheep in the field. 3. However, the 'fluffy white shape' you saw was actually a large dog wearing a sheep costume. The real sheep was hidden behind a bush where you couldn't see it. 4. You had Belief, it was True, and you had Justification (you saw something sheep-like). But did you know there was a sheep, or was it a 'Gettier' coincidence?
Which component of JTB is missing if you make a 'lucky guess' that happens to be correct?
If stands for Belief and stands for Truth, what is the third requirement for knowledge in the Tripartite Theory?
A 'Gettier Case' describes a situation where someone is right, but only because of a coincidence or 'double luck.'
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the 'Sheep in the Field' story to a friend and ask them if they think it counts as knowledge.
Practice Activity
Find a 'fact' you believe today. Identify your justification: Is it Empiricism (senses), Rationalism (logic), or Authority (a source)?