Why Causal Connections Do Not Solve the Gettier Problem

828 Words2 Pages

The purpose of this paper is to show that Goldman's causal theory of knowledge does not solve the Gettier problem. First, I will reiterate the Gettier problem. Second, I will show how Goldman's theory attempts to solve the Gettier problem. Next, I will show how over determination points out a major flaw for Goldman's theory. Finally, I will demonstrate that Goldman's theory does not work if the world we live in is not one of absolute truth and void of deception.

First, when looking at the causal chain theory it is imperative that we understand the basis of what it is trying to do which is to attempt to solve The Gettier problem. So, in order to continue in the building of my argument I will briefly cover what said problem was in an effort to show how the causal theory of knowledge fails to solve the problem that Gettier proposed. In brief: the Gettier problem pointed out that knowledge requires more than a true justified belief. An example that Gettier provides is one where a man: Smith, is told by a potential employer that the man that will be getting the job has ten coins in his pocket, Smith then is justified in believing that Johnson: another man who interviewed for the same position, will be the one getting the job as Smith knows without a doubt that Johnson has 10 coins in his pocket. However Smith ends up getting the job as he unknowingly also had ten coins in his pocket. Smith was justified in believing that the man that has ten coins in his pocket will be getting the job, however we cannot say that Smith truly had knowledge based on this account because he wrongly assumed that Johnson would be getting the job. Hence Gettier said that there must be more to knowledge than true justified beliefs.

Next,...

... middle of paper ...

...hain would solve the Gettier problem.

At this point in Goldman's paper he begins to examine knowledge through testimony stating: "This too can be analyzed causally. p causes a person T to believe p, by perception. T's belief of p gives rise to (causes) his asserting p. T's asserting p causes S, by auditory perception, to believe that T is asserting p. S infers that T believes p, and from this in turn, he infers that p is a fact."which simply means that p causing T to believe it and T stating said belief in front of S leads S to believe that p must be a fact. After stating this Goldman points out that if miscommunication is somehow involved in this transaction, such as the accidental removal of "not" when referring to p in a newspaper article, then S will not have the correct causal chain leading to his belief therefore he would not have knowledge on p.

Open Document