Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
modify JTB Theory of Knowledge. Analysis of the JTB model reveals that knowledge does not justify belief. The paper evaluates the theory of knowledge, the Gettier's challenge of the JTB, and modification of the JTB theory of knowledge.
JTB (Justified True Belief) is a theory of knowledge attempting to provide a sufficient and set of necessary conditions under which an individual can claim to possess certain knowledge. Prior to Gettier's challenge, many epistemologists have produced a routinely less detail of a person having the knowledge of particular p. The theory suggests that if an individual p has a belief of b, if b is indeed true, and if p is justified to believe b, then "p knows that b." For example, I do believe that I have two hands and indeed, I have two hands because I use my hand to do several things such as writing and typing.
However, people make intuitive distinction between knowledge and belief because people can believe in false preposition. For example, if you know p, then p must be true. Essentially, people can justify of having true beliefs, however, they do not seem to have knowledge. A person can make a mistake in believing something to be true when in fact it is false. Typically, someone can hold a belief when indeed evidence suggests that it is false. For example, a lot of evidence shows that astrologists do not make an accurate prediction. (James 1).
Edmund Gettier produced a short piece in 1963 revealing analysis of knowledge. The piece stimulates and clarifies what is exactly knowledge is all about. Gettier's cases are intended to challenge people understanding the propositional knowledge, and the Gettier's proposition had a dramatic impact on knowledge because it attempts to repair the traditional concept of knowledge Gettier (1963) produced two cases to reveal the analysis of the JTB theory of knowledge. Gettier's uses counterexamples to produce arguments that there are beliefs that are both true and justified therefore satisfying the three condition of knowledge (JTB) however they do not satisfy a genuine case of knowledge.
Gettier produces two counterexamples with reference to the JTB analysis. According to Gettier's Case I, Smith is competing for a job with Jones; however; the President of the company tells Smith that Jones will get the job because "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket." (Gettier, 2). Following this proposition, the President assured that Jones would get the job because "he had counted the coins in Jones's pocket ten minutes ago." (Gettier, 2).
Suppose Smith accepts that Jones will get the job because Smiths believes in having strong evidence and justified in believing that Jones will get the job because Jones has 10 coins. However, Smith also does not know that "he himself has ten coins in his pocket." (Gettier, 2). Based on this proposition, Smith justified believe is false because Smith does not know that he also has 10 coins in the pocket; and falsely believe that Jones will get the job.
Typically, the Case I reveal that it is possible to be true and justified without being knowledge. In other words, the established combination of justification, belief, and truth in the Case I does not sufficiently entail and justify the "presence of knowledge." Essentially, Gettier's justification, belief and true seemed to be met; however, the results cannot be categorized as knowledge because of the element of luck involved.
Essentially, Gettier case is not against the traditional belief of knowledge JTB. However, Gettier revealed the flaw in JTB and the flaw assists in better understanding of the nature and epistemic justification of knowledge. The Case I as being interpreted by Gettier and subsequently being regarded by other epistemologists, contains a belief that could justified and true, however does not contain knowledge. Thus, the JTB is false if it is an accurate reading of the Case I, then JTB is not true. As being revealed in Case I, it is possible to regard a belief as being true and justified without necessary being knowledge. In other word, Case I establishes the combination of justification, true and belief, however, the Case I does not entail knowledge. In essence, a belief can be justified and true, however, and may not have a sufficient stand from being knowledge. However, if the JTB is not true as it stands, how can it be replaced? Gettier also makes no suggestion how it can be replaced.
Fallibility is one of the Gettier case because the support is not perfect despite that the Case provides the support for a belief and justification. Moreover, there is a significant element of luck in the Gettier case because odd or abnormal circumstances happens in the case making the existence true and justified, however, quite fortuitous.
Despite the benefits revealed in the "JTB theory of knowledge," this paper provides modification of the JTB relying on the traditional justification of true and belief.
Modification of JTB
This paper attempts to modify components fallibility and luck, which are component of JTB model. In this case, the paper embraces infallibility proposal to eliminate challenging concept in the JTB cases to enhance a greater understanding of knowledge and allows a person having a fallible justification of belief of p, which could adequately satisfy JTB's justification criteria.
Moreover, there is a need to eliminate the concept Luck from the JTB model. In essence, there is too much luck in the JTB model, and there is a need to remove too much luck. For example, the Gettier's case consists of too much luck for knowledge to exist in his argument. However, there is still no conclusive argument on the strategy to measure too much luck to generate knowledge.
The paper also attempts to eliminate the false evidence in the JTB model. In the Case I of the Gettier model, Smith makes a false believe that Jones will get a job; however, if Smith lacks that evidence about Jones, he would not have been inferred to believe in b. In other word, he would have probably not have the belief as who will secure the job because he would possess no evidence on the matter. In essence, he would have had no justified and true b that fails to demonstrate knowledge.
This paper also eliminates the inappropriate causality from the JTB model. For example, a belief will be justified by using visual-based process. Typically, the paper can modify the JTB model by altering the Case I of the Gettier's cases. If the company is about to offer Smith the job and the President of the company may want to mislead Smith that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket. Suppose, Smith has ten coins in his pocket and the coins makes a jingling noise, which subsequently make to realize how many coins in the Jones pocket. The fact Smith is able to get the job based on the ten coins in his pocket makes belief b true and in existence, which will make b now be knowledge.
This paper proposes GNJTB (non-defeated justified true belief) model, which is obviously related to JTB however, the new model adds other essential condition and outperforms JTB in several criteria. Moreover, it provides a simplicity explanation to enhance our institutions. Moreover, it reveals the relationships between knowledge and other essential concepts. The paper uses the following illustration to demonstrate the importance of GNJTB.
(HOOLIGAN) Bad John is generally known as a hooligan who always does bad things in the town. One day, John decides to destroy a barn and drives into the country to find a barn. After an hour, he pulls up and retrieves his gun takes aim at a roadside ban that he sees.
Cool and calm as he pulls the triggers believes "Surely, that is a nice barn & #8230;really this is a nice barn." He feels no remorse as he destroys the barn." Thus, John is forever is being referred as "Bad John" as he is very bad.
Meanwhile, Bad John believes that he will destroy the barns as he aims his trigger. To be sure that it is a barn he takes his aim. Then, he is sure that it is a barn.
Meanwhile, the paper adds another twist: Bad John is in Fake Bad Country and starts shooting at the only barn found around. Indeed Bad John destroys only barn that Good John is gazing. However, other barns remained are holograms. Meanwhile, Bad John knows that he is destroying a barn because he knows that he is a barn. The analogy of the model is that Bad John knows it is a barn, Good John also knows it is a barn.
Another illustration to the new model is about bad Regina.
(CHIP) Bad Regina is a sadist who decides to cause a hapless to her husband, Ben, excruciating pain. She decides to cause her husband excruciating pain by using her electrical engineering skills to do harm to her husband. Thus, she designs the electrical dangerous material and…[continue]
"Theory Of Knowledge" (2014, September 30) Retrieved October 22, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/theory-of-knowledge-192276
"Theory Of Knowledge" 30 September 2014. Web.22 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/theory-of-knowledge-192276>
"Theory Of Knowledge", 30 September 2014, Accessed.22 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/theory-of-knowledge-192276
Constructivist Computerized Learning Constructivist theories of knowledge development and learning have been around since the turn of the 20th century. But it may well be the advent of computerized and e-learning educational opportunities that offer this perspective its real chance to make a difference in the virtual world of learning and instruction. From Piaget to Papert, the core precepts of the constructivist understanding have been affirmed by what technology has to
TOK The theory of knowledge suggests four ways of knowing: sense perception, reason, emotion, and language. Sense perception is the most important way of knowing in the traditional sciences because the scientific method is based on observable phenomena. Therefore, empirical research uses sense perception as its way of knowing. Reason is another way of knowing. Less quantifiable than sense perception, reason depends on logic and formal processes of thinking. Emotional knowledge
From an epistemological perspective the focus on reporting and analysis, control and management that were the initial design goals of these systems led to an overly-reliant mindset on historical data. As a result, a posteriori knowledge was deficient in the first decades of these systems being used. The need for explaining and analyzing the epistemological structure of these systems' transitions from being entirely a priori centric to seeking to integrate
Seeking to strip his conception of knowledge to the bare minimum by removing all notions which can subject to reasonable doubt, Descartes differentiates between assumptions and true knowledge because, in his estimation, any perception based solely on sensory input is inevitably flawed, as the human sensory system is known to be fallible (Collingwood). By rejecting the role of assumptions in forming knowledge, Descartes devises perhaps the most well recognized
The theory is also highly generalizable, as it can be applied to truly any body of knowledge yet is especially suited for nursing knowledge, which occurs along common lines throughout the profession (Chinn & Kramer, 2008; Fawcett et al., 2001). At the same time, the theory is quite abstract, and implementation can be difficult without a great deal of self-awareness, self-confidence, and a thorough understanding of the non-concrete and
vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge. It shapes what we can know. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge. Response Question: Does vocabulary limit what we can know or limit what we can express? The sentiment, "the vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge. It shapes what we can know" expresses only a partial truth. The vocabulary we have only shapes what we
People sometimes behave irrationally because of their emotional feelings. A perfect example in this case would be love relationships. Why do people involved in love relationships behave sometimes strangely? Why do they keep changing their minds? Why do such people do things they once said they would have never done? Why do these people keep repeating their "mistakes" over and over? And finally, why do these people sometimes seem