The Tripartite Definition of Knowledge Knowledge as justified, true belief. If someone knows a proposition then three conditions must be satisfied: the person must believe the proposition, it must be true, and it must be justified. S knows that p if and only if: (e.g. Sharon knows that Paris is the capital of France if and only if...) S believes that p (the belief condition; e.g. Sharon believes Paris is the capital of France) p is true (the truth condition; e.g. Paris is indeed the Capital of France) S has adequate or sufficient evidence for p, or is justified in believing p (The evidence condition; e.g. Sharon read that Paris is the capital of France in an encyclopaedia). Ask pupils to fill in the back of their worksheet.

 A necessary condition for some state of affairs X is a condition that must be satisfied in order for X to obtain. e.g. A necessary condition for John to be a bachelor is that he is male. A sufficient condition for some state of affairs X is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains. e.g. The sufficient conditions for John to be a bachelor are that he is male, that he is unmarried and that he is an adult.

Gettier Counter-Examples In 1963 Edmund Gettier (1927 - ) published a short paper entitled ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ It purported to give examples of beliefs which are both true and apparently justified but which we are inclined not to count as examples of knowledge. If he had indeed discovered such counter-examples then this would show that the three conditions were not sufficient for knowledge. Smith and Jones 10 mins Read through Gettier’s text with the pupils (maybe read it out together as a class then get them to read it again in silence): get the pupils to annotate the text and then ask the pupils to explain how Gettier’s example of Smith and Jones is a criticism of the sufficiency of the JTB conditions for knowledge.

If the JTB conditions are not jointly sufficient for knowledge what 2 options do we have? Strengthen the justification condition Add a 4th condition

Infallibilism No false lemmas Reliablism Virtue epistemology Definition Does it strengthen the J condition or add a 4th? Example of knowledge according to this definition One strength, one weakness of the definition

Ernest Sosa

Which definition of knowledge do you think is best Which definition of knowledge do you think is best? JTB=K ITB=K JTB + N =K RTB=K VTB = K

The specification says you need to know… The distinction between the 3 types of knowledge What is meant by the tripartite view of knowledge Issues for the tripartite view: The truth condition is not necessary The belief condition is not necessary The justification condition is not necessary The 3 conditions are not jointly sufficient as cases of lucky true beliefs (Gettier) show that the J condition needs strengthening, added to or replacing Responses Strengthen the J condition – infallibilism Add a no false lemmas condition Replace justified with ‘reliably informed’ Replace justified with an account of epistemic virtue

p. 62-66 blue book and p. 77-80 lacewing p.62-66 blue book and p.77-80 lacewing. Are the conditions individually necessary?

5 mark question – choose one Explain one criticism of Infallibilism. Explain one criticism of the No False Lemmas theory. Explain one criticism of Reliabilism. Explain one criticism of Virtue Epistemology.

Marks Levels of response mark scheme 5 5 A full, clear and precise explanation. The student makes logical links between precisely identified points, with no redundancy. 4 A clear explanation, with logical links, but some imprecision/redundancy. 3 The substantive content of the explanation is present and there is an attempt at logical linking, but the explanation is not full and/or precise. 2 One or two relevant points made, but not precisely. The logic is unclear. 1 Fragmented points, with no logical structure. 0 Nothing written worthy of credit.