₦airaland Forum

The Gettier problem is considered a problem in modern epistemology issuing from counter-examples to the definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). The problem owes its name to a three-page paper published in 1963, by Edmund Gettier, called "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?", in which Gettier argues that this is not necessarily the case. Although conducted in esoteric style by academic philosophers, the basic issue is one that everyone is able to relate to - when does a fact become 'a fact', and when is it merely 'opinion'? Conventionally speaking, we count something as knowledge not only if someone believes it to be true, and 'in fact' it is true, but they must also have reasons for their belief. Indeed, the definition of what counts as a 'reason' is itself complicated, as we feel the reason must be 'relevant', and itself based on 'facts' not merely irrational beliefs. One of the clearer scenarios, known as The Cow in the Field, illustrates the situation when the reasoning held for a belief turns out 'in fact' to be faulty.

The Cow in the Field
Farmer Field is concerned about his prize cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field, happily grazing, he says he needs to know for certain. He doesn't want merely to have a 99 percent probability that Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is safe.
Farmer Field goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognizes as his favorite cow. He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.
Yet, at this point, does Farmer Field really know it?
The dairyman says he will check too, and goes to the field. There he finds Daisy, having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. He also spots a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Field thought.
But was he right to say that he knew she was?
The philosopher, Martin Cohen, who described this scenario originally [1], says that in this case the farmer:
believed the cow was safe;
had evidence that this was so (his belief was justified);
and it was true that his cow was safe.
However, we might still feel that the farmer did not really know it. Herein lies the core of the problem of 'knowledge as justified true belief'.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

Any thoughts or opinions, anyone?

Just one comment, the farmer's justification or evidence was in fact false i.e. he thought he had seen the cow whereas he had simply seen a piece of paper. Hence his subjective conclusion at the safety of the cow may have actually been wrong.

Tasma:
Just one comment, the farmer's justification or evidence was in fact false i.e. he thought he had seen the cow whereas he had simply seen a piece of paper. Hence his subjective conclusion at the safety of the cow may have actually been wrong.

Yet his belief was right, that the cow was safe in the field. It was his evidence for it that was flawed. Yes he may have been wrong but he wasn't. His belief was without foundation yet he was right.

It is a common error to think that because someone's argument as to why something is or is not the case is flawed that must mean that the person is wrong.

That also leads on to wonder if it is just our belief in christ that will be judged or whether we will also be judged on the basis of why we believe in Christ. People believe in Christ for various different reasons, some of them are so left field that it boggles. Does that undermine the value of the belief.

The bible praises those who have believed just by hearsay and knocks the likes of Thomas who insists on seeing with his eyes and touching with his hands. Is the faith of Thomas to be measured differently due to his insistence on evidence? Does he get points ducked off his heavenly credits?

Abeg make una helep me answer the questions above. Was Thomas' confession of faith somehow less than that of others who didn't see but believed?

John 20

28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

^
What did Jesus say?

ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY AND THE TRUE BELIEVER
  by Terry Walstrom

In Physics class the Professor gathers his students together on the first day of school in the gymnasium for a stunning demonstration in what he terms "absolute certainty."

The class is naturally intrigued, curious and eager to observe.
From the metal joist supports in the gym ceiling a cable is hanging all the way to eye-level in the center of the space; like a fireman's pole. But, at the end of this cable is a 100lb metal wrecking ball! What is this all about?

The Professor begins his demonstration.
"In science there are things we are so certain of we call them LAWS. They are beyond refutation. Scientists depend on them and you should too. For example, " the Professor walks over to the wrecking ball and continues talking,
"Sir Isaac Newton discovered the principle that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is called a LAW of MOTION."  The Professor gazes around at the students who are still anticipating something extraordinary to come.
"There is also a Law of Conservation of Energy. All it means is that you never get more out of a system than you put into it. In other words, there is no free ride!"

Then with a sly smile he concludes: "Who believes what I said is true?"
All hands go up easily. The Professor smiles.
"How many of you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN?"
Nobody hesitates; all hands stay up.
"Very well, let me test your convictions about certainty and belief. I need a volunteer."
An athletic jock-type student ambles forward with a mock macho swagger.
"Okay, here is what I'm going to do. I'm going to have you step 10 feet back away from this 100lb wrecking ball."  The student complies to the sniggering and smart aleck comments of his class mates.
"Now, I'm going to push this ball forward until it is one inch from your nose." The Professor grabs the ball and pushes slowly as he walks toward the student until the ball almost touches his face.
"I am going to let go of this wrecking ball and it is going to swing backward all the way to the other side about 10 feet and pause and move forward again BACK TOWARD YOUR FACE."

The jock shakes his head like he's just heard really unbelievably bad news. The students grow loud and agitated.
"Since you believe that the Law of Conservation will not allow this ball to come any closer than it is now, you cannot possibly have your head smashed to a bloody pulp by the impact. For that would mean more energy somehow crept into the system; which science tells us is impossible."
Immediately the volunteer vanishes back into the crowd who "boo's" him unmercifully.
"Anybody else want to show their faith in science?"  Several candidates are unwillingly offered by the crowd but each one shakes loose and declines in protest.
"Very well then. I myself will demonstrate Absolute Certainty." And with that the Professor holds the ball in front of his nose and lets go.

The ball arcs directly away from him in a ponderously slow heave across the gym and pauses 20 feet away. With the sure swiftness of a freight train it hurls ominously forward on a dead ahead path toward the Professor's fragile skull! At the last possible millisecond the ball pauses at maximum arc a little more than an inch from his outstretched nose and swings ever back again!
There was dead silence, groans, screams and then a cheer as the dramatic demonstration came to a close. Thunderous applause ensued as the students hailed the extreme bravery of their Professor.

"Why are you cheering? It was impossible that I could be hurt. I knew that but you didn't know it. Why? Because my Absolute Certainty trumps your so-called "belief." You said you believed the Laws of Conservation but, you only had a weak shadow of it in your mind. You were actually shocked and amazed when I wasn't fractured into bits!"
"Until you recognize the difference between "thinking" something is true and absolutely "believing" it--you haven't learned today's lesson at all."

      I was one of the students in that demonstration all those years ago. I considered it an amazing demonstration at the time. I still do. And yet, one day I would display the same Absolute Certainty of Belief that would put me seemingly in harm's way that the Professor displayed all those years past.  But, it had nothing to do with science or any Law of motion.

Source
Highlights mine.

Bump!! How does Gettier's problem apply to the belief without evidence encouraged in the gospel of John?