Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Gettier-style cases show that true belief can fail to constitute knowledge, so the converse—false belief blocking knowledge—is not the sole epistemic concern.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Gettier cases show JTB is incomplete, but this doesn't prove falsity is not 'the sole concern'—truth remains necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates 'JTB is insufficient' with 'falsity isn't our primary epistemic concern,' which are different theses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Epistemic systems can require both truth and additional conditions (like causal connection) without abandoning truth's centrality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Gettier cases demonstrate justified true belief lacking knowledge (e.g., Smith's ten coins case), proving JTB insufficient.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If truth alone were the sole epistemic concern, we'd accept lucky guesses as knowledge when true, but we intuitively don't.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The proper function of knowledge-attribution is to identify reliable cognitive achievement, which requires more than truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.