3 ms·

All the counter-examples to knowledge being justified true belief I have seen so far use coincidences. I got the impression that these philosophers were missin

• ben_w 3y ago
  > All the counter-examples to knowledge being justified true belief I have seen so far use coincidences. I think coincidence is be necessary to avoid the scenarios being "justified false beliefs". I think that merely assigning low probability gives you increasingly better standards for "justified", and then you need some kind of threshold to say if you're sufficiently justified. The example I was given was "I know there's a sheep in that field, I can see it" but you actually saw a shaggy dog, the sheep which was in the field was hiding behind a bush. Very much a coincidence scenario (like I said, I think they have to be), but also I don't think that fits your model for construction of knowledge involving repetition — instead, I would say that the statement should be "I see what looks like a sheep, therefore I have a justified belief there is a sheep in the field", but normal people wouldn't phrase it like that, and would find it marginally less weird to phrase it as "I see what looks like a sheep," (true) "therefore I know there is a sheep in the field" (false, but the point is they would say "I know" not "I've got a justified belief").