Knowing entails believing, if something is known it must be true and a known belief must be justified.
The Tripartite (JTB) theory:
S knows p, if and only if:
- S believes p
- p is true
- S is justified in believing p
However, Gettier, 1963, argued against this theory by the flaw of the third cause. This is the belief being true, but in fact the subject does not have justification for the belief. For example, believing that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, without having true justification (seeing it yourself). This means the basis of knowing does matter, so even though a belief is true, because of false or no justification, it can not be known. This made me think does that mean all ones knowledge can only be real knowledge if there is verifiable evidence from ourself? Surely this means that all information given to us from books, media and teaching is really just belief until we have seen it ourselves, but then again there is the question of true reality and trusting everything we see for ourselves. For we are aware that there is still the complication of our mind not really seeing everything and actually being pretty unobservant to everything around us. ahh, too much of a philosophical day filled with circular arguments, but and yet agains and complete questioning!
