It appears that the challenges presented by Gettier and others undermine or discredit the traditional definition of knowledge. If you are justified in holding a particular view or belief, then it would be justifiable for you to accept any statements of logic associated with that belief. Gettier’s belief that justified true belief may be necessary for knowledge, but not being sufficient for actually knowing seems to be a contradiction to me. Also, the simple fact that there is not a consensus on a solution to “The Gettier Problem” leads me to wonder if a solution actually exists. The concept of justified true belief is not a matter of knowing or not knowing, it addresses the difference of knowing and having knowledge. The vagueness of this idea has left many philosophers and epistemologists pondering the definition of knowledge.
I will address the third solution given in this assignment. In this solution, it is suggested that justification be replaced with “something else”. I found this also to be a very vague response to the issue at hand. This concept is based on the use of cognitive processes in obtaining knowledge. . This solution also states that the Reliabilist does not find it necessary to know whether or not these cognitive processes are functioning properly. If one has no idea whether or not cognitive processes are functioning properly, how can one be certain of the knowledge obtained from the use of those processes? Even if this solution is accepted, who determines the reliability of each person’s cognitive functioning? For example, someone who may be dealing with stress, under the influence of a substance, or in some way mentally altered may feel that their cognitive abilities are in no way impaired. Would this person be considered knowledgeable just because they believe it?