I’m not making any general claim about whether the demonstrations wouldn’t have occurred later, just a specific claim about whether knowledge explains the events that actually went down
Instead of the justified true belief standard, it makes more sense to me to think of “knowledge” as always provisional. We’re never certain we have knowledge in the way JTB wants, and instead of focusing on knowledge, we should focus more on error-correction. JTB tries to show us when we “really know” something, but the alternative is that we’re never really sure that we completely know something, and all knowledge is forever open to be corrected or improved upon (as the criticisms of JTB perhaps show). It seems like JTB wants to obtain knowledge as if it’s some unchanging 'thing' and insulate it against criticism, when in reality we should focus on developing the best possible methods of criticism and error correction.
This is me too. I think the J wants us to *know beyond a reasonable doubt*. There might be a little bit of doubt beyond that but we'll deal with it if and when it comes up.
I don't quite get why Gettier might say the rioters were justified in thinking the murderer's family were immigrants though. It may have been true belief but it wasn't justified. Gettier problems are not problems.
The original article claimed the children were murdered by African migrants, not by the child of African migrants. So I think it is actually not a Gettier case, since it was just a plain old falsehood, rather than a JTB. Though the specific claim that the murderer was the child of migrants could, I suppose, be a Gettier case.
This is my personal philsophy pet pedantry, but the founding myth of epistemology (that "everyone thought knowledge is a settled matter of JTB until Gettier's paper changed everything") is a contemporary fabrication.
I have this same objection to the idiotically commonplace media abuse of the word “refute”.
Usually what they actually mean is “denied” or “contested” or “repudiated”.
But “refuted” is, as you say, factive: it means that you actually PROVED the other person to have been wrong.
Lol that’s one of my #1 pet peeves
This seems to be assuming the Southport incident was _the_ cause. When it was more the straw on the camel back in my estimation
I’m not making any general claim about whether the demonstrations wouldn’t have occurred later, just a specific claim about whether knowledge explains the events that actually went down
Instead of the justified true belief standard, it makes more sense to me to think of “knowledge” as always provisional. We’re never certain we have knowledge in the way JTB wants, and instead of focusing on knowledge, we should focus more on error-correction. JTB tries to show us when we “really know” something, but the alternative is that we’re never really sure that we completely know something, and all knowledge is forever open to be corrected or improved upon (as the criticisms of JTB perhaps show). It seems like JTB wants to obtain knowledge as if it’s some unchanging 'thing' and insulate it against criticism, when in reality we should focus on developing the best possible methods of criticism and error correction.
This is me too. I think the J wants us to *know beyond a reasonable doubt*. There might be a little bit of doubt beyond that but we'll deal with it if and when it comes up.
I don't quite get why Gettier might say the rioters were justified in thinking the murderer's family were immigrants though. It may have been true belief but it wasn't justified. Gettier problems are not problems.
The original article claimed the children were murdered by African migrants, not by the child of African migrants. So I think it is actually not a Gettier case, since it was just a plain old falsehood, rather than a JTB. Though the specific claim that the murderer was the child of migrants could, I suppose, be a Gettier case.
This is my personal philsophy pet pedantry, but the founding myth of epistemology (that "everyone thought knowledge is a settled matter of JTB until Gettier's paper changed everything") is a contemporary fabrication.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/119519046/The_Benefit_to_Philosophy_Acc4Oct2014Epub5Nov2014_GREEN_AAM.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjSxuypr4mIAxVbSkEAHVoZH94QFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0D03Zfl3SRut_0ukVS3876
Enjoyed the article, though.