VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:39:41 01/21/16 Thu
Author: Rashed Ahmed (Happy)
Subject: Gettier problem
In reply to: Rashed Ahmed 's message, "Re: Paradigm shift" on 07:38:36 01/21/16 Thu

>>A paradigm shift is a phrase that was popularized by
>>American physicist Thomas Kuhn to describe the nature
>>of scientific revolutions, or fundamental changes in
>>the basic concepts and experimental practices of a
>>scientific discipline. Kuhn contrasts these shifts to
>>the activity of normal science, which he characterized
>>as scientific work done within a prevailing framework
>>(or paradigm). In this context, the word "paradigm" is
>>used in its original meaning, as "example" (Greek:
>>παραδειγμ
>&
>>#945;).
>>
>>The nature of scientific revolutions has been a
>>question posed by modern philosophy since Immanuel
>>Kant used the phrase in the preface to his Critique of
>>Pure Reason (1781), referring to Greek mathematics and
>>Newtonian physics. In the 20th century, new crises in
>>the basic concepts of mathematics, physics, and
>>biology, revitalized interest in the question among
>>scholars. It was against this active background that
>>Kuhn published his work.
>>
>>Kuhn presented his notion of a paradigm shift in his
>>influential book The Structure of Scientific
>>Revolutions (1962). As one commentator summarizes:
>>
>>Kuhn acknowledges having used the term "paradigm" in
>>two different meanings. In the first one, "paradigm"
>>designates what the members of a certain scientific
>>community have in common, that is to say, the whole of
>>techniques, patents and values shared by the members
>>of the community. In the second sense, the paradigm is
>>a single element of a whole, say for instance Newton’s
>>Principia, which, acting as a common model or an
>>example... stands for the explicit rules and thus
>>defines a coherent tradition of investigation. Thus
>>the question is for Kuhn to investigate by means of
>>the paradigm what makes possible the constitution of
>>what he calls a "normal science". That is to say, the
>>science which can decide if a certain problem will be
>>considered scientific or not. Normal science does not
>>mean at all a science guided by a coherent system of
>>rules, on the contrary, the rules can be derived from
>>the paradigms, but the paradigms can guide the
>>investigation also in the absence of rules. This is
>>precisely the second meaning of the term "paradigm",
>>which Kuhn considered the most new and profound,
>>though it is in truth the oldest.[1]
>>
>>Since the 1960s, the concept of a paradigm shift has
>>also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to
>>describe a profound change in a fundamental model or
>>perception of events, even though Kuhn himself
>>restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences.
>Epistemology
>(Listeni/ᵻˌpɪstᵻˈmɒl
>01;dʒi/; from Greek
>ἐπιστήμη,
>epistēmē, meaning "knowledge,
>understanding", and λόγος,
>logos, meaning "word") is a term first used by the
>Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier to
>describe the branch of philosophy concerned with the
>nature and scope of knowledge;[1][2] it is also
>referred to as "theory of knowledge". Put concisely,
>it is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It
>questions what knowledge is and how it can be
>acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent
>to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much
>of the debate in this field has focused on the
>philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and
>how it relates to connected notions such as truth,
>belief, and justification. The term was probably first
>introduced in Ferrier's Institutes of Metaphysic: The
>Theory of Knowing and Being (1854), p. 46.[3]
>Epistemology
>(Listeni/ᵻˌpɪstᵻˈmɒl
>01;dʒi/; from Greek
>ἐπιστήμη,
>epistēmē, meaning "knowledge,
>understanding", and λόγος,
>logos, meaning "word") is a term first used by the
>Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier to
>describe the branch of philosophy concerned with the
>nature and scope of knowledge;[1][2] it is also
>referred to as "theory of knowledge". Put concisely,
>it is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It
>questions what knowledge is and how it can be
>acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent
>to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much
>of the debate in this field has focused on the
>philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and
>how it relates to connected notions such as truth,
>belief, and justification. The term was probably first
>introduced in Ferrier's Institutes of Metaphysic: The
>Theory of Knowing and Being (1854), p. 46.[3]
The Gettier problem is a philosophical question about whether a piece of information that happens to be true but that someone believes for invalid reasons, such as a faulty premise, counts as knowledge. It is named after American philosopher Edmund Gettier, who wrote about the problem in a three-page paper published in 1963, called "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?". The paper refers to the concept of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB), credited to Plato, though Plato argued against this very account of knowledge in the Theaetetus (210a). In the paper, Gettier proposed two scenarios where the three criteria (justification, truth, and belief) seemed to be met, but where the majority of readers would not have felt that the result was knowledge due to the element of luck involved.

The term is sometimes used to cover any one of a category of thought experiments in contemporary epistemology that seem to repudiate a definition of knowledge as justified true belief.

The responses to Gettier's paper have been numerous. While some rejected Gettier's examples, many sought to adjust the JTB account of knowledge to lessen the impact of both Gettier's own problems and other problems (collectively titled "Gettier problems") created in their mould. Since 1963, experiments have also been conducted to determine whether the instinctive reactions of those presented with a Gettier problem are uniform or display language or genetic biases.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.