Gettier Problem: The Traditional Analysis of Knowledge

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Gettier Problem
Part 1
The Gettier problem challenges the traditional analysis of knowledge and questions whether a justified true belief is sufficient for knowledge. Before the Gettier problem, the traditional consensus was that as long as someone believed something, had a justified reason for believing it. That belief was the truth, then that person had knowledge about the thing in question (Hetherington, The Gettier Problem 4). The traditional analysis of knowledge had to fulfill three conditions of justification, truth, and belief (JTB) for justified true belief to be equal to knowledge. 
           However, Gettier challenged this analysis of knowledge and concluded that knowledge does not equal justified belief. Gettier believed that one could have true justifiable belief without knowledge (Hetherington, The Gettier Problem 11). He provided examples to dismiss the idea that knowledge equal justified true belief. In the first example, Jones and Smith apply for a job, and the company owner tells Smith that Jones will get the job. In addition, Smith counts the coins in Jones's pocket and finds that Jones has ten coins. Smith might assert that Jones will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Subsequently, Smith might believe that the man who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket. However, Smith also happens to have ten coins in his picket, although he is not cognizant of the fact. He also happens to get the job. As such, it turns out that his belief is true. However, does that mean he had knowledge? Smith was only lucky. This is the Gettier problem. 
           Knowledge does not equal justified belief because one, a justified belief can be false, and two, justification involves deductive entailment (Hetherington, The Gettier Problem 11). One can believe something, but if both justification and truth do not characterize the belief, it cannot be equal to knowledge. To know what they believe and not fall prey to the Gettier problem, a person must have strong convictions about something. Their claim should be a matter of fact. This means that it should reflect what is happening in reality. They must also have sufficient evidence to support their claim. But most importantly, a person should tie both justification and truth together to avoid falling prey to the Gettier problem. They should establish the accuracy of their belief first because, as indicated earlier, it is possible for something to be justifiable and false. Their belief should also be rationally based on the evidence.
Part 2
           Many scholars have responded to the Gettier problem with different views and counterexamples to either provide a solution to the problem or dismiss the problem. For instance, Jonathan Weinberg, Shaun Nichols, and Stephen Stich (2001) responded to the problem by challenging other epistemologists’ strong intuition about the lack of knowledge in Gettier cases (Hetherington, Gettier Problems 60). Specifically, these scholars conducted empirical research that questioned the epistemological intuition in Gettier's cases. The scholars asked different ...