Daidai ga dalilin da bai dace ba

Daidai ga dalilin da bai dace ba
philosophical problem (en)
Bayanai
Suna saboda	Edmund Gettier (mul)
Muhimmin darasi	justified true belief (en)

Matsalar Gettier, a fagen ilimin kimiyya, matsala ce ta falsafa game da fahimtar ilimin Bayyanawa. An danganta shi ga masanin falsafar Amurka Edmund Gettier, misalai na Gettier-type (wanda ake kira "Gettier-cases") ya kalubalanci asusun gaskiya na gaskiya (JTB) na ilimi. Asusun JTB ya riƙe cewa ilimin daidai yake da gaskatawar gaskiya; idan duk sharuɗɗa uku (gaskiya, gaskiya, da imani) sun cika da'awar da aka ba su, to akwai sanin wannan da'awar. A cikin takarda mai shafi uku na 1963 mai taken "Shin Gaskiya ta gaskiya ce?", Gettier yayi ƙoƙari ya kwatanta ta hanyar misalai biyu cewa akwai lokuta inda mutane zasu iya samun gaskatawa, gaskatawa ta gaskiya game da da da'awar amma har yanzu sun kasa sanin shi saboda dalilan gaskatawa. Don haka, Gettier ya yi iƙirarin cewa ya nuna cewa asusun JTB bai isa ba saboda ba ya lissafin duk yanayin da ake buƙata da isasshen ilimi.

Kalmomin "Gettier problem", "Gettiers case", ko ma adjective "Gettiered", ana amfani da su a wasu lokuta don bayyana kowane lamari a fagen ilimin kimiyya wanda ke nufin ƙin asusun JTB na ilimi.

Amsoshi ga takardar Gettier sun kasance da yawa. Wasu sun ki amincewa da misalai na Gettier a matsayin rashin isasshen hujja, yayin da wasu ke neman daidaita asusun JTB na ilimi da kuma lalata ƙarfin waɗannan misalai. Matsalolin Gettier sun sami hanyar shiga cikin gwaje-gwajen zamantakewa inda masu bincike suka yi nazarin martani na fahimta ga shari'ar Gettier daga mutane daban-daban.

Tarihi

Tambayar abin da ke tattare da "sani" tsoho ne kamar falsafar kanta. Ana samun lokuta na farko a cikin Tattaunawar Plato, musamman Meno (97a-98b) da Theaetetus . Gettier da kansa ba shine na farko da ya tayar da matsalar da ake kira bayan shi ba; Alexius Meinong da Bertrand Russell sun amince da wanzuwarsa, wanda ya tattauna matsalar a cikin littafinsa Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. A zahiri, an san matsalar tun daga Zamanin Tsakiya, kuma masanin falsafar Indiya Dharmottara da masanin ilimi kimiyya Peter na Mantua sun gabatar da misalai game da ita.

Dharmottara, in his commentary c. 770 AD on Dharmakirti's Ascertainment of Knowledge, gives the following two examples:Samfuri:Epistemology

According to the inherited lore of the epistemological tribe, the JTB [justified true belief] account enjoyed the status of epistemological orthodoxy until 1963, when it was shattered by Edmund Gettier... Of course, there is an interesting historical irony here: it isn't easy to find many really explicit statements of a JTB analysis of knowledge prior to Gettier. It is almost as if a distinguished critic created a tradition in the very act of destroying it.

Ka'idoji daban-daban na ilimi, gami da wasu daga cikin shawarwarin da suka fito a falsafar Yammacin bayan Gettier a 1963, masanan ilimin Indo-Tibetan sun yi muhawara kafin da bayan Dharmottara. Musamman, Gaṅgeśa a cikin karni na 14 ya gabatar da cikakken ka'idar ilimi.

Shari'ar Russell, wacce ake kira shari'ar agogo ta tsaya, ta kasance kamar haka: Alice ta ga agogo da ke karanta agogo biyu kuma ta yi imanin cewa lokacin agogo biyu ne. A zahiri, sa'o'i biyu ne. Akwai matsala, duk da haka: Alice ba ta sani ba, agogo da take kallo ya tsaya sa'o'i goma sha biyu da suka gabata. Alice don haka tana da gaskiya, gaskatawa mai adalci. Russell ya ba da amsar kansa ga matsalar. Tsarin Edmund Gettier game da matsalar yana da mahimmanci yayin da ya dace da tasowa na irin ilimin falsafa wanda W. V. O. Quine da sauransu suka inganta, kuma an yi amfani da shi azaman hujja don canji zuwa ga ka'idodin hujja na waje. John L. Pollock da Joseph Cruz sun bayyana cewa matsalar Gettier ta "canja ainihin halin ilimin zamani" kuma ta zama "babban matsala na ilimin kimiyya tunda ta sanya cikas ga nazarin ilimi". : 13–14 

Alvin Plantinga ya ki amincewa da binciken tarihi:

A fire has just been lit to roast some meat. The fire hasn't started sending up any smoke, but the smell of the meat has attracted a cloud of insects. From a distance, an observer sees the dark swarm above the horizon and mistakes it for smoke. "There's a fire burning at that spot," the distant observer says. Does the observer know that there is a fire burning in the distance?

Duk da wannan, Plantinga ya yarda cewa wasu masana falsafa kafin Gettier sun ci gaba da asusun JTB na ilimi, musamman C. I. Lewis da AJ Ayer. : 7 

Ilimi kamar yadda gaskatawa ta gaskiya (JTB)

Labarin JTB na ilimi shine da'awar cewa ana iya nazarin ilimin a matsayin gaskataccen imani na gaskiya, wanda shine a ce ma'ana jumla kamar "Smith ya san cewa ruwan sama ya yi a yau" ana iya ba da shi tare da waɗannan yanayin, waɗanda suka zama dole kuma sun isa don samun ilimi:

A desert traveller is searching for water. He sees, in the valley ahead, a shimmering blue expanse. Unfortunately, it's a mirage. But fortunately, when he reaches the spot where there appeared to be water, there actually is water, hidden under a rock. Did the traveller know, as he stood on the hilltop hallucinating, that there was water ahead?

An fara ba da labarin JTB ga Plato, kodayake Plato ya yi jayayya da wannan labarin ilimi a cikin Theaetetus (210a). Wannan labarin ilimi shine abin da Gettier ya fuskanta.

Misalai biyu na asali na Gettier

Takardar Gettier ta yi amfani da misalai don jayayya cewa akwai lokuta na imani waɗanda suke gaskiya da kuma cancanta - saboda haka gamsar da dukkan sharuɗɗa uku don ilimi a kan asusun JTB - amma hakan bai bayyana a matsayin ainihin shari'ar ilimi ba. Sabili da haka, Gettier ya yi jayayya, misalai na adawa sun nuna cewa asusun JTB na ilimi ba gaskiya ba ne, kuma ta haka ne ake buƙatar bincike daban-daban don bin diddigin abin da muke nufi ta hanyar "sani".

Shari'ar Gettier ta dogara ne akan misalai biyu na JTB, dukansu sun haɗa da wani hali mai suna Smith. Kowane mutum ya dogara da da'awar biyu. Da farko, ana kiyaye wannan hujja ta hanyar ƙaddamarwa, kuma na biyu cewa wannan ya shafi "bangaskiya" ta Smith. Wato, idan Smith ya cancanci gaskata P, kuma Smith ya fahimci cewa gaskiyar P ta ƙunshi gaskiyar Q, to Smith zai cancanci ya gaskata Q. Gettier ya kira waɗannan misalai "Case I" da "Case II":

 

 

Matsayi na ƙarya da matsalolin Gettier-style

A cikin misalai biyu na ainihi na Gettier (duba kuma rikice-rikice), gaskatawar gaskiya ta zo, idan da'awar da Smith ya yi suna da rikici, a matsayin sakamakon ƙaddamarwa (amma kuma duba kayan aiki) daga gaskatawar ƙarya da aka tabbatar da cewa "Jones zai sami aikin" (a cikin yanayin I), kuma cewa "Jonas yana da Ford" (a yanayin II). Wannan ya haifar da wasu amsoshi na farko ga Gettier don kammala cewa ana iya daidaita ma'anar ilimi cikin sauƙi, don haka an tabbatar da ilimin gaskatawa ta gaskiya wacce ba ta dogara da tushen ƙarya ba. Batun mai ban sha'awa da ke tasowa shine yadda za a san wane mahallin ne a zahiri ƙarya ko gaskiya yayin samun kammalawa, saboda kamar yadda yake a cikin shari'ar Gettier, mutum yana ganin cewa mahallin na iya zama mai ma'ana sosai don gaskatawa kuma mai yiwuwa gaskiya ne, amma ba a san shi ba akwai abubuwan da ke rikitarwa da ƙarin bayani waɗanda ƙila an rasa su yayin kammala wani abu. Tambayar da ta taso ita ce har zuwa wane irin yadda mutum zai iya yin ƙoƙari ya "tabbatar" duk abubuwan da ke cikin gardamar kafin ya karfafa ƙarshe.

Matsalar da aka samu

A cikin wani labari na 1966 da aka sani da "Takarda a cikin filin", Roderick Chisholm ya nemi mu yi tunanin cewa wani, X, yana tsaye a waje da filin yana kallon wani abu da ya yi kama da tumaki (ko da yake a zahiri, kare ne da aka yi kama da tunkiya). X ya yi imanin cewa akwai tumaki a cikin filin, kuma a zahiri, X daidai ne saboda akwai tumaki bayan tudu a tsakiyar filin. Saboda haka, X yana da gaskatawa ta gaskiya cewa akwai tumaki a filin.

Wani labari na Brian Skyrms shine "The Pyromaniac", wanda aka buga wasan wuta ba saboda dalilan da pyromaniac ke tunanin ba amma saboda wasu ba a sani ba "Q radiation".

Alvin Goldman ya ba da ra'ayi daban-daban game da batun a cikin labarin "kayan ajiya" (yana ba da izini ga Carl Ginet tare da misali). A cikin wannan, wani mutum yana tuki a cikin ƙauye, kuma yana ganin abin da ya yi kama da shago. Dangane da haka, yana tunanin cewa yana ganin shagon. A zahiri, wannan shine abin da yake yi. Amma abin da bai sani ba shi ne cewa unguwar gabaɗaya ta ƙunshi ɗakunan ajiya da yawa - bangarorin ɗakunan ajiyar da aka tsara don su yi kama da ɗakunan ajiye na ainihi idan aka kalli su daga hanya. Tun da yake, idan yana kallon daya daga cikinsu, da ba zai iya faɗar bambancin ba, "sani" nasa cewa yana kallon shagon zai zama kamar ba shi da tushe.

Rashin amincewa da tsarin "babu wani wuri na ƙarya"

  An soki mafita ta "babu wani wuri na ƙarya" (ko "babu wani lemmas na ƙarya") wanda aka gabatar a farkon tattaunawar, yayin da aka gina ko kuma aka ƙirƙira matsalolin Gettier na gaba ɗaya wanda aka ce gaskatawar gaskiya ba ta zama sakamakon jerin tunani daga gaskatawar ƙarya. Misali:   An yi jayayya cewa kamar dai Luka bai "san" cewa Markus yana cikin dakin ba, duk da cewa an yi iƙirarin cewa yana da gaskatawar gaskiya cewa Markus yana ciki, amma kusan ba a bayyane yake cewa imanin cewa "Mark yana cikin dakin" an ƙaddara shi daga kowane wuri, ba tare da wasu ƙarya ba, kuma ba ya haifar da mahimman yanke shawara da kansa; Luka bai yi kama da yin tunani game da komai ba; "Mark yana ciki" da alama ya kasance wani ɓangare na abin da ya gani.

Gina matsalolin Gettier

Babban ra'ayin da ke bayan misalai na Gettier shine cewa tabbatar da imani ba daidai ba ne ko ba daidai ba, amma imani ya zama gaskiya ta hanyar sa'a. Linda Zagzebski ta nuna cewa duk wani bincike na ilimi dangane da imani na gaskiya da wasu bangarorin tabbatarwa waɗanda ke da 'yanci daga gaskiya, za su kasance masu alhakin shari'ar Gettier. Ta ba da tsari don samar da shari'o'in Gettier:

(1) fara da shari'ar gaskatawar ƙarya;

(2) gyara misalin, yana mai da ma'anar tabbatarwa da karfi ga ilimi, amma imani ba daidai ba ne ta hanyar sa'a;

(3) sake gyara misalin, ƙara wani abu na sa'a kamar yadda imani yake gaskiya, amma wanda ya bar kashi na tabbatarwa ba a canza shi ba;

Wannan zai samar da misali na imani wanda ya isa ya cancanci (a kan wasu bincike na ilimi) ya zama ilimi, wanda gaskiya ne, kuma wanda ba misali ne na ilimi ba. A wasu kalmomi, ana iya samar da shari'ar Gettier don kowane bincike na ilimi wanda ya haɗa da ma'auni na tabbatarwa da ma'anar gaskiya, waɗanda ke da alaƙa sosai amma suna da ɗan gajeren 'yancin kai.

Amsoshin Gettier

Matsalar Gettier matsala ce a cikin tsari na farko, amma gabatarwar da Gettier ya yi game da kalmomin kamar su gaskatawa ya san yana motsa tattaunawar zuwa fagen ilimin kimiyya. A nan, muhawara mai sauti (gaskiya) da aka ba Smith sannan kuma suna buƙatar zama masu inganci (gaskiyawa) da gamsarwa (daidai) idan za su fito a cikin tattaunawar duniya ta ainihi game da gaskatawar gaskiya.

Amsoshin matsalolin Gettier sun fada cikin rukuni uku:

• Tabbatar da asusun JTB: Wannan amsar ta tabbatar da asusun ilimin JTB, amma ta ƙi shari'ar Gettier. Yawanci, mai ba da shawara ga wannan amsa ya ƙi shari'ar Gettier saboda, sun ce, shari'ar Jettier sun haɗa da matakan da ba su da isasshen hujja. Ilimi a zahiri yana buƙatar matakan tabbatarwa mafi girma fiye da shari'ar Gettier.
• Amsawar yanayi na huɗu: Wannan amsa ta yarda da matsalar da Gettier ya haifar, kuma ta tabbatar da cewa JTB ya zama dole (amma ya isa ba) don ilimi. Bayani mai kyau na ilimi, bisa ga wannan nau'in ra'ayi, zai ƙunshi aƙalla yanayin na huɗu (JTB + ?). Tare da yanayin na huɗu a wurin, misalai na Gettier (da sauran misalai masu kama da juna) ba za su yi aiki ba, kuma za mu sami isasshen ka'idojin da suka zama dole kuma sun isa ga ilimi.
• Amsar maye gurbin tabbatarwa: Wannan amsa kuma ta yarda da matsalar da shari'ar Gettier ta haifar. Koyaya, maimakon kiran yanayi na huɗu, yana neman maye gurbin tabbatar da kansa da wasu yanayi na uku (?TB) wanda zai sa misalai masu rikitarwa suka zama tsofaffi.

Ɗaya daga cikin amsoshin, sabili da haka, shi ne cewa a cikin waɗannan lokuta da ke sama babu wani imani da ya dace saboda ba zai yiwu a tabbatar da wani abu da ba gaskiya ba ne. Sabanin haka, gaskiyar cewa ra'ayi ya zama ba gaskiya ba shine tabbacin cewa ba a tabbatar da shi sosai ba da farko. A karkashin wannan fassarar, ma'anar JTB na ilimi ya tsira. Wannan ya canza matsalar zuwa ma'anar tabbatarwa, maimakon ilimi. Wani ra'ayi shi ne cewa tabbatarwa da rashin adalci ba su cikin adawa ba. Maimakon haka, tabbatarwa lamari ne na digiri, tare da ra'ayin da ya fi dacewa. Wannan labarin na tabbatarwa yana goyan bayan masana falsafa kamar su Paul Boghossian da Stephen Hicks . A cikin amfani da hankali, ra'ayi ba kawai zai iya zama mafi adalci ba ko kuma ba daidai ba amma kuma ana iya tabbatar da shi a wani bangare (shugaban Smith ya gaya masa X) kuma ba daidai bane (shugaban Smith maƙaryaci ne). Shari'ar Gettier sun haɗa da shawarwari waɗanda gaskiya ne, an yi imani, amma waɗanda ke da hujja mai rauni. A cikin shari'ar 1, an ki amincewa da cewa shaidar shugaban Smith "shaida mai ƙarfi". Shari'ar kanta ta dogara da shugaban ya kasance ba daidai ba ko yaudara (Jones bai sami aikin ba) sabili da haka ba abin dogaro ba ne. A cikin yanayin 2, Smith ya sake karɓar ra'ayi mai tambaya (Jones ya mallaki Ford) tare da hujja mara iyaka. Ba tare da hujja ba, shari'o'in biyu ba su lalata asusun JTB na ilimi ba.

Sauran masana kimiyya sun yarda da kammalawa na Gettier. Sakamakon su ga matsalar Gettier, sabili da haka, sun haɗa da ƙoƙarin neman wasu bincike na ilimi.

Yanayin na huɗu (JTB + G) yana gabatowa  

Hanyar da aka fi sani da wannan irin martani da za a dauka ita ce abin da za a iya kira "JTB + G" bincike: wato, bincike wanda ya dogara da gano wasu yanayi na huɗu - yanayin "ba-Gettier-matsalar" - wanda, idan aka kara da yanayin tabbatarwa, gaskiya, da imani, zai samar da saiti na daban-daban da kuma hadin gwiwa isasshen yanayi.  

Ka'idar Goldman

Ɗaya daga cikin irin wannan amsar ita ce ta Alvin Goldman (1967), wanda ya ba da shawarar ƙara yanayin haddasawa: imanin batun ya cancanci, ga Goldman, kawai idan gaskiyar imani ta sa batun ya sami wannan imani (a hanyar da ta dace); kuma don amintaccen imani na gaskiya don ƙidaya a matsayin ilimi, batun dole ne ya iya "sake sake gina" (da hankali) wannan sarkar haddasawa. Binciken Goldman zai kawar da shari'ar Gettier a cikin cewa imanin Smith ba gaskiya ne na waɗancan imanin ba; ba zato ba tsammani ne cewa imanin da Smith ya yi a cikin shari'ar Jettier ya zama gaskiya, ko kuma cewa tsinkayar da Smith ya aikata: "Mai cin nasarar aikin zai sami tsabar kudi 10", bisa ga imanin da ya yi, (duba kuma bundling) gaskiya ne a wannan haɗari. Wannan ka'idar tana kalubalantar ta hanyar wahalar bayar da bayani mai mahimmanci game da yadda dangantakar da ta dace ta bambanta da wadda ba ta dace ba (ba tare da amsawar zagaye na cewa irin dangantakar da ya dace ba ita ce mai samar da ilimi); ko komawa zuwa matsayin da aka tabbatar da gaskatawar gaskiya ba a bayyana shi da rauni a matsayin yarjejeniyar ra'ayi da aka koya. Wannan na ƙarshe zai zama da amfani, amma ba mai amfani ba ko kuma abin sha'awa kamar ma'anar da ba ta canzawa na ra'ayoyin kimiyya kamar ƙarfin. Don haka, karɓar amsa ya haifar da matsalar Gettier yawanci yana buƙatar mutum ya karɓi (kamar yadda Goldman ya yi da farin ciki) wani nau'i na dogaro game da tabbatarwa.

Yanayin rashin ƙarfi na Lehrer-Paxson

Keith Lehrer da Thomas Paxson (1969) sun ba da shawarar wani martani, ta hanyar ƙara yanayin rashin inganci ga nazarin JTB. A kan asusun su, ilimi ba a ci nasara ba ne gaskatawa gaskiya - wanda shine a ce gaskatawar gaskiyar ta ƙidaya a matsayin ilimi idan kuma kawai idan har yanzu babu wani gaskiya cewa, da batun ya san shi, zai ci nasara da tabbatar da gaskiyarsu ta yanzu don imani. (Saboda haka, alal misali, tabbatarwar Smith don gaskata cewa mutumin da zai sami aikin yana da tsabar kudi goma a cikin aljihunsa shine amincinsa cewa Jones zai sami aikin, haɗe da gaskatawarsa cewa Jones yana da tsalar kudi goma a aljihun sa. Amma idan Smith ya san gaskiyar cewa Jones ba zai sami aikin ba, hakan zai kayar da hujja ga imaninsa.)

Pragmatism

An haɓaka Pragmatism a matsayin koyarwar falsafa ta C.S. Peirce da William James (1842-1910). A ra'ayin Peirce, an bayyana gaskiyar a matsayin takaddar alamar ga abin da yake da shi kuma an bayyana shi a matsayin kyakkyawan ra'ayi na ƙarshe wanda isasshen bincike zai haifar da wuri ko daga baya. Misali na gaskiyar James shine wanda ke aiki a hanyar imani, kuma imani gaskiya ne idan a cikin dogon lokaci Ya yi aiki ga dukkanmu, kuma ya jagorantar mu cikin sauri ta hanyar duniyarmu mai karɓar baƙi. Peirce ya yi jayayya cewa ana iya tsabtace metaphysics ta hanyar amfani.

Ka yi la'akari da irin tasirin da za ka iya samun abubuwan da za ka yi la'ana game da abubuwan da ka yi. Sa'an nan kuma, tunaninku game da waɗannan tasirin shine duk tunaninku game le abu.

Daga ra'ayi mai ma'ana game da irin wannan sau da yawa ana danganta shi ga James, bayyana a wani lokaci ko za'a iya cewa wani imani gaskiya ne kuma yana da adalci ana ganin shi ba fiye da motsa jiki a cikin pedantry ba, amma kasancewa yana iya gane ko wannan imani ya haifar da sakamako mai amfani shine kamfani mai amfani. Peirce ya jaddada fallibilism, ya ɗauki tabbatar da cikakkiyar tabbaci a matsayin shingen bincike, kuma a cikin 1901 ya bayyana gaskiya kamar haka: "Gaskiya ita ce cewa jituwa na wata sanarwa mai ban mamaki tare da iyakar da bincike mara iyaka zai kawo imani na kimiyya, wanda jituwa da maganganun da ba daidai ba zai iya mallaka ta hanyar ikirarin rashin daidaito da kuma wani bangare na gaskiya, kuma wannan ikirarin yana da mahimmanci ga mafi kyau idan har yanzu ba daidai ba, duk wani abu ne mai yiwuwa ga gaskiya ba. " Sabili da haka, mutum ya fi gaskiya ta hanyar kasancewa Socratic, gami da fahimta jahilcin kansa da sanin cewa mutum na iya tabbatar da kuskure. Wannan shi ne yanayin, duk da cewa a cikin al'amuran da za a iya amfani da su wani lokaci dole ne mutum ya yi aiki, idan mutum ya yi wani abu, tare da yanke shawara da cikakken amincewa.

Binciken hanyoyin JTB

The difficulties involved in producing a viable fourth condition have led to claims that attempting to repair the JTB account is a deficient strategy. For example, one might argue that what the Gettier problem shows is not the need for a fourth independent condition in addition to the original three, but rather that the attempt to build up an account of knowledge by conjoining a set of independent conditions was misguided from the outset. Those who have adopted this approach generally argue that epistemological terms like justification, evidence, certainty, etc. should be analyzed in terms of a primitive notion of knowledge, rather than vice versa. Knowledge is understood as factive, that is, as embodying a sort of epistemological "tie" between a truth and a belief. The JTB account is then criticized for trying to get and encapsulate the factivity of knowledge "on the cheap", as it were, or via a circular argument, by replacing an irreducible notion of factivity with the conjunction of some of the properties that accompany it (in particular, truth and justification). Of course, the introduction of irreducible primitives into a philosophical theory is always problematical (some would say a sign of desperation), and such anti-reductionist accounts are unlikely to please those who have other reasons to hold fast to the method behind JTB+G accounts.

Dalilan Fred Dretske da kuma bin diddigin gaskiya na Robert Nozick

Fred Dretske ya kirkiro wani asusun ilimi wanda ya kira " dalilai na ƙarshe", wanda Robert Nozick ya farfado da shi a matsayin abin da ya kira subjunctive ko asusun bin diddigin gaskiya. Tsarin Nozick ya nuna cewa ra'ayi p misali ne na ilimi lokacin da:

1. p gaskiya ne
2. S ya yi imanin cewa p
3. idan p gaskiya ne, S zai yi imani da cewa p
4. idan p ba gaskiya ba ne, S ba zai yi imani da cewa p ba

Ma'anar Nozick an yi niyya ne don adana tunanin Goldman cewa ya kamata a kawar da shari'ar Gettier ta hanyar musanta gaskatawar gaskiya "ba zato ba tsammani", amma ba tare da yin hadari ga yiwuwar sakamako mai tsanani na gina abin da ake buƙata a cikin bincike ba. Wannan dabarar duk da haka, ta gayyaci martani cewa asusun Nozick kawai ya ɓoye matsalar kuma bai warware ta ba, domin ya bar tambaya game da dalilin me ya sa Smith ba zai yi imani da shi ba idan ya kasance ƙarya. Amsar da ta fi dacewa ita ce saboda imanin Smith ya samo asali ne daga gaskiyar abin da ya yi imani da shi; amma hakan ya mayar da mu cikin sansanin causalist. Yanayin na uku ya zama sananne a matsayin aminci epistemological, yayin da na huɗu ya zama sanannun epistemological.

Tattaunawa da misalai masu yawa (musamman shari'ar Grandma) sun haifar da bita, wanda ya haifar da canjin (3) da (4) don iyakance kansu ga wannan hanyar (watau hangen nesa):

1. p gaskiya ne
2. S ya yi imanin cewa p
3. idan p gaskiya ne, S (ta amfani da hanyar M) zai yi imani da cewa p
4. idan p ba gaskiya ba ne, S (ta amfani da hanyar M) ba zai yi imani da cewa p

Saul Kripke ya nuna cewa wannan ra'ayi ya kasance matsala kuma yana amfani da misali mai suna Fake Barn Country misali, wanda ke bayyana wani yanki wanda ke dauke da ɗakunan ajiya na ƙarya ko bangon ɗakunan ajiyar. A tsakiyar waɗannan ɗakunan ajiya na karya akwai ɗakunan ajiyar gaske guda ɗaya, wanda aka fentin ja. Ba duk ɗakunan ajiya na karya ba ne aka fentin su ja.

Jones yana tuki a kan babbar hanyar, ya dubi sama ya faru ya ga ainihin shagon, don haka ya samar da imani:

• Na ga wani shago.

Kodayake Jones ya sami sa'a, da an yaudare shi cikin sauƙi kuma bai san shi ba. Sabili da haka, ba ya cika yanayin 4, domin idan Jones ya ga wani shago na karya ba zai sami wani ra'ayi cewa shi shago ne na karya ba. Don haka, har ma a kan asusun da aka sake sabuntawa, Jones bai san cewa yana ganin shago ba.

Koyaya, Jones zai iya dubawa kuma ya samar da imani:

• Na ga wani jan shago.

Wannan ya cika dukkan sharuɗɗa huɗu na asusun Nozick, sabili da haka Jones ya san cewa yana ganin jan shago. Don haka, Nozick ya himmatu ga ra'ayin cewa Jones ya san cewa yana ganin jan shago, amma bai san cewa yana ga shago ba. Wannan ya saba wa ka'idar rufewa na epistemic, wanda ya bayyana cewa mutum koyaushe yana cikin matsayi na sanin sakamakon abin da mutum ya sani. Don haka, tunda Jones ya san cewa yana ganin jan shago, kuma sakamakon ya ga jan shago cewa ya ga shago, ta hanyar rufewa ya kamata ya kasance a cikin matsayi don sanin cewa yana ganin shago - amma Nozick ya musanta wannan. Karɓar ra'ayin Nozick sabili da haka yana buƙatar ƙin rufewar epistemic, wanda galibi ana ganinsa azaman farashi mara kyau.

Labarin Robert Fogelin

A cikin babi na farko na littafinsa Pyrronian Reflexions on Truth and Justification, Robert Fogelin ya ba da ganewar asali wanda ke haifar da mafita ta tattaunawa ga matsalar Gettier. Matsalar koyaushe tana tasowa lokacin da hujja da aka ba ta da alaƙa da abin da ya sa ra'ayin gaskiya. Yanzu, ya lura cewa a irin waɗannan lokuta koyaushe akwai rashin daidaituwa tsakanin bayanin da ke akwai ga mutumin da ke yin ikirarin ilimin wasu ra'ayoyin p da bayanin da ke samuwa ga mai kimanta wannan ikirarin ilimin (ko da mai kimantawa shine mutum ɗaya a wani lokaci daga baya). Misali na Gettierian ya taso ne lokacin da hujja da mutumin da ke yin ikirarin ilimi ya bayar ba za a iya karɓa da mai kimanta ilimin ba saboda bai dace da yanayin bayanansa ba. Misali, a cikin yanayin shagon karya mai kimantawa ya san cewa binciken da aka yi daga wani wanda bai san yanayin da ya shafi ba hujja ce mai karɓa kamar yadda yake yin ra'ayin p (cewa ainihin shagon ne) gaskiya.

Rashin amincewar Richard Kirkham

Richard Kirkham ya ba da shawarar cewa ya fi kyau a fara da ma'anar ilimi mai ƙarfi sosai don ba da misali ba zai yiwu ba. Ko za a iya raunana shi ba tare da ya zama mai amfani da misali ba ya kamata a bincika shi. Ya kammala cewa koyaushe za a sami misali ga kowane ma'anar ilimi wanda shaidar mai bi ba ta buƙatar imani ba. Tun da yake a mafi yawan lokuta shaidar mai bi ba ta buƙatar imani, Kirkham ya rungumi shakku game da ilimi; amma ya lura cewa imani har yanzu yana iya zama mai ma'ana koda kuwa ba abu ne na ilimi ba.

Kokarin warware matsalar

Mutum na iya amsawa ga Gettier ta hanyar neman hanyar kauce wa kammalawa (s) da farko. Koyaya, da wuya a yi jayayya cewa ilimin ya cancanci gaskatawa na gaskiya idan akwai lokuta da suka cancanci imani na gaskiya ba tare da kasancewa ilimi ba; don haka, waɗanda suke so su guje wa ƙaddamarwar Gettier dole ne su sami wata hanya don kawar da misalai na Gettier. Don yin haka, a cikin sigogi na takamaiman misali ko misali, dole ne su yarda da cewa

1. Shari'ar Gettier ba ainihin shari'o'in gaskatawa ba ne, ko
2. Shari'ar Gettier da gaske lambobi ne na ilimi bayan duk,

ko, nuna wani lamari inda zai yiwu a kauce wa mika wuya ga misali ta hanyar kawar da duk wani wajibi don a yi la'akari da shi cewa JTB ya shafi kawai waɗancan wuraren da Gettier ya sanya duhu, ba tare da rage ƙarfin JTB don amfani da shi a waɗancan lokuta inda yake da mahimmanci ba. Sa'an nan, kodayake shari'ar Gettier ta nuna cewa Smith yana da wani imani kuma imaninsa gaskiya ne, da alama don bayar da shawara (1), dole ne mutum ya yi jayayya cewa Gettier, (ko, wato, marubucin da ke da alhakin takamaiman nau'in kalmomi a wannan lokacin da aka sani da shari'a (1), kuma wanda ke tabbatar da shi game da imanin Smith), ba daidai ba ne saboda yana da kuskuren tabbatarwa. Irin wannan gardama sau da yawa ya dogara da asusun waje wanda aka fahimci "gaskiya" ta hanyar da ko imani "ya dace" ya dogara ba kawai da yanayin ciki na mai bi ba, har ma da yadda wannan yanayin ciki ke da alaƙa da duniyar waje. Ana gina asusun waje kamar yadda Smith ya yi imani da shi a cikin Case I da Case II ba su da gaskiya (ko da yake yana da alama ga Smith cewa su ne), saboda imaninsa ba a layi tare da duniya a hanyar da ta dace ba, ko kuma yana yiwuwa a nuna cewa ba shi da inganci don tabbatar da cewa "Smith" yana da wani muhimmin imani "na musamman" kwata-kwata, dangane da JTB ko in ba haka ba. Irin waɗannan asusun, ba shakka, suna fuskantar nauyin da ake yi wa Gettier: dole ne su bayyana irin dangantakar da ke tsakanin duniya da mai bi a matsayin dangantakar da ta dace.

Wadanda suka yarda (2) suna cikin 'yan tsiraru a cikin falsafar nazari; gabaɗaya, waɗanda suke shirye su yarda da shi su ne waɗanda ke da dalilai masu zaman kansu don faɗi cewa abubuwa da yawa sun ƙidaya a matsayin ilimi fiye da fahimta da ta haifar da asusun JTB za su yarda. Babban daga cikin wadannan shine masu ƙarancin ƙididdiga, Crispin Sartwell, wanda ke riƙe da cewa duk imani na gaskiya, gami da shari'ar Gettier da ƙididdigar sa'a, ya ƙidaya a matsayin ilimi.

A nasa bangaren, Nolbert Briceño, lauyan Venezuelan, ya rubuta wata kasida mai taken "Refutation of the Gettier Problem", inda ya bincika tunanin Edmund Gettier kamar yadda aka bayyana a cikin labarinsa kuma ya yi iƙirarin nuna kuskuren da wannan ya yi, don haka ya kare ma'anar ilimin da Plato ya bayar.

Binciken gwaji

Wasu ayyukan farko a fagen falsafar gwaji sun ba da shawarar cewa hangen nesa na gargajiya game da shari'ar Gettier na iya bambanta da al'adu. Koyaya, binciken da ya biyo baya ya ci gaba da kasa yin maimaita waɗannan sakamakon, a maimakon haka ya gano cewa mahalarta daga al'adu daban-daban suna raba fahimtar gargajiya. Nazarin da aka yi kwanan nan sun ba da shaida ga akasin haka, cewa mutane daga al'adu daban-daban suna da irin wannan fahimta a cikin waɗannan lokuta.

Dubi kuma

• Knowledge-first epistemology - Littafin falsafa na 2000 na Timothy WilliamsonShafuka da ke nuna taƙaitaccen bayanin manufofi

 

Haɗin waje

• Rubutun labarin
• Gettier problemaPhilPapers
•  
• Gettier problema cikinShirin Ontology na Falsafa na Indiana