Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

[Age]

Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

Something which you know to be true could've become false since the last time you checked.

This is cache expiration and invalidation 101 stuff.

OBVIOUSLY 'you' are MISTAKING 'think' with 'know' here "skepdick".

But, THEN AGAIN, BECAUSE 'you' are NOT ABLE TO DEFINE those words, 'you' would NOT 'KNOW" the DIFFERENCE ANYWAY.

I don't need to define the word "idiot" to know how to use it.

'you' ALSO do NOT KNOW HOW to define the word 'idiot', right "skepdick"?

As SHOWN and PROVED, below.

Age, you are an idiot

If I asked 'you' 'What does being 'mature' mean, to 'you', "skepdick"? do you think you could give it a go here, for 'us', in front of everyone?

[PeteOlcott]

I am just going to go with my original definition.
Knowledge is the set of fully justified true beliefs such that the
justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

This is not "belief" in the typical sense where the belief can possibly
be false.

When you here say, 'typical sense', who and/or what is 'this typical sense', in relation to, EXACTLY?

Belief never means logically certain thus necessarily true.
I do mean logically certain and thus necessarily true. I only
used the term "belief" because it is used in the conventional
epistemological definition of knowledge.

[PeteOlcott]

In this case {belief} only means truth that we are aware of.
This frames knowledge as the set of logical tautologies that form the
body of the analytic side of the analytic versus synthetic distinction.

If we have the most infinitesimal degree of less than 100% perfect
logically justified certainty then we do not have knowledge.

The model of the world such {cats are animals} is considered an
axiomatic system where 100% perfectly justified logical certainty
is guaranteed for all those things that are true by definition.

Just out of CURIOSITY do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

If, and WHEN, you DO, then you ALSO KNOW, with 100% CERTAINTY, what IS and what IS NOT ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.

[PeteOlcott]

This will also include knowledge about things that are not true by definition,
yet these things themselves are not construed as knowledge.

To sum this up everything about anything that can be expressed using language
is the body of analytical knowledge. Logical tautologies that are true on the
basis of their meaning are direct knowledge and everything else that can be
expressed using language is indirect knowledge in that we can have ideas about
other things that are:
(a) {Possibly true} such as theories and conjectures and working hypotheses.
(b) {Pure fictions} that are not construed as possibly true

Well 'all-of-this' just comes down to just KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'KNOWING' and 'thinking'.

None-the-less the Gettier problem is easily abolished by simply specifying
a better definition of knowledge that links the justification to the truth
of the belief more tightly. I can't understand why this was not done within
a few weeks of Gettier presenting his case thus permanently closing the
whole issue.

[Age]

I am just going to go with my original definition.
Knowledge is the set of fully justified true beliefs such that the
justification guarantees the truth of the belief.

This is not "belief" in the typical sense where the belief can possibly
be false.

When you here say, 'typical sense', who and/or what is 'this typical sense', in relation to, EXACTLY?

Belief never means logically certain thus necessarily true.

I KNOW, and this is WHY I have been SAYING what I HAVE here.

I do mean logically certain and thus necessarily true. I only
used the term "belief" because it is used in the conventional
epistemological definition of knowledge.

Okay, I WILL START AGAIN, 'what', EXACTLY, is the supposed and alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word'?

And, who USES the 'belief' word in 'that way', BECAUSE 'that word' is supposedly and allegedly USED in SOME alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the word 'knowledge'?

[Age]

In this case {belief} only means truth that we are aware of.
This frames knowledge as the set of logical tautologies that form the
body of the analytic side of the analytic versus synthetic distinction.

If we have the most infinitesimal degree of less than 100% perfect
logically justified certainty then we do not have knowledge.

The model of the world such {cats are animals} is considered an
axiomatic system where 100% perfectly justified logical certainty
is guaranteed for all those things that are true by definition.

Just out of CURIOSITY do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

If, and WHEN, you DO, then you ALSO KNOW, with 100% CERTAINTY, what IS and what IS NOT ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.

The QUESTION HAS A 'Yes' OR 'No' ANSWER.

[Age]

This will also include knowledge about things that are not true by definition,
yet these things themselves are not construed as knowledge.

To sum this up everything about anything that can be expressed using language
is the body of analytical knowledge. Logical tautologies that are true on the
basis of their meaning are direct knowledge and everything else that can be
expressed using language is indirect knowledge in that we can have ideas about
other things that are:
(a) {Possibly true} such as theories and conjectures and working hypotheses.
(b) {Pure fictions} that are not construed as possibly true

Well 'all-of-this' just comes down to just KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'KNOWING' and 'thinking'.

None-the-less the Gettier problem is easily abolished by simply specifying
a better definition of knowledge that links the justification to the truth
of the belief more tightly.

From what 'you' have so far described as being some so-called 'gettier problem', there there IS NO, and NEVER WAS ANY 'problem' NOR 'issue' here, from the outset ANYWAY.

I can't understand why this was not done within
a few weeks of Gettier presenting his case thus permanently closing the
whole issue.

But the so-called 'issue' was NEVER OPEN, ANYTIME, well NOT from my perspective ANYWAY.

If one just WANTS a BETTER definition for the 'knowledge' word, then ABOLISH ALL sense or 'thinking' that 'that word' is IN RELATION TO the 'belief' word AT ALL.

What IS True IS JUSTIFIED, by ACTUAL PROOF, and NOT WITH ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do WITH ANY 'belief', WITH the 'belief' word, NOR WITH ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do WITH ANY 'belief'.

The 'knowledge' words COMES FROM or IS IN RELATION TO 'knowing', ALONE, which can ONLY BE True, Right or Correct, whereas 'belief' IS IN RELATION TO 'thinking' ONLY, which can be False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

And, CONTRADICTORY, people would ONLY, REALLY BELIEVE (in) 'things', which they ALREADY BELIEVE ARE true, BUT, PARADOXICALLY, ONLY DO BELIEVE (in) 'things' that they do NOT YET ACTUALLY KNOW to be True.

[PeteOlcott]

When you here say, 'typical sense', who and/or what is 'this typical sense', in relation to, EXACTLY?

Belief never means logically certain thus necessarily true.

I KNOW, and this is WHY I have been SAYING what I HAVE here.

I do mean logically certain and thus necessarily true. I only
used the term "belief" because it is used in the conventional
epistemological definition of knowledge.

Okay, I WILL START AGAIN, 'what', EXACTLY, is the supposed and alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word'?

And, who USES the 'belief' word in 'that way', BECAUSE 'that word' is supposedly and allegedly USED in SOME alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the word 'knowledge'?

The Gettier problem, in the field of epistemology, is a landmark philosophical problem concerning the understanding of descriptive knowledge. Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier, Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

[PeteOlcott]

Just out of CURIOSITY do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

If, and WHEN, you DO, then you ALSO KNOW, with 100% CERTAINTY, what IS and what IS NOT ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.

The QUESTION HAS A 'Yes' OR 'No' ANSWER.

If you ask me whether or not I know how to bake a cake and I provide the
complete recipe and all of the steps for baking a cake, yes should be inferred.

[Agent Smith]

The Gettier problem, in the field of epistemology, is a landmark philosophical problem concerning the understanding of descriptive knowledge. Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier, Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

The above statements were written by a practising Dr of philosophy, he's a tenured professor, has been at it for at least 10 years, 3 kids, a house in Midnapore, and likes table tennis, 1 dog, 2 cats, and his all-time favorite dish is cold yogurt.

I neither know, nor think I know.

[Agent Smith]

On a more serious note. We've identified the bug in our code. How do we fix it?

A simple 4th condition can be added to the JTB theory of knowledge, but it seems as though this condition is exactly what the JTB theory was designed to address ... an epic fail!

[Age]

Belief never means logically certain thus necessarily true.

I KNOW, and this is WHY I have been SAYING what I HAVE here.

I do mean logically certain and thus necessarily true. I only
used the term "belief" because it is used in the conventional
epistemological definition of knowledge.

Okay, I WILL START AGAIN, 'what', EXACTLY, is the supposed and alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word'?

And, who USES the 'belief' word in 'that way', BECAUSE 'that word' is supposedly and allegedly USED in SOME alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the word 'knowledge'?

The Gettier problem, in the field of epistemology, is a landmark philosophical problem concerning the understanding of descriptive knowledge. Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier, Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

What IS the supposed 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word?

[Age]

Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.

The QUESTION HAS A 'Yes' OR 'No' ANSWER.

If you ask me whether or not I know how to bake a cake and I provide the
complete recipe and all of the steps for baking a cake, yes should be inferred.

But you have NOT YET provided the complete ANY 'thing' here.

Do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

[PeteOlcott]

I KNOW, and this is WHY I have been SAYING what I HAVE here.



Okay, I WILL START AGAIN, 'what', EXACTLY, is the supposed and alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word'?

And, who USES the 'belief' word in 'that way', BECAUSE 'that word' is supposedly and allegedly USED in SOME alleged 'conventional epistemological definition of the word 'knowledge'?

The Gettier problem, in the field of epistemology, is a landmark philosophical problem concerning the understanding of descriptive knowledge. Attributed to American philosopher Edmund Gettier, Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

What IS the supposed 'conventional epistemological definition of the 'knowledge' word?

Gettier-type counterexamples (called "Gettier-cases") challenge the long-held justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.

[PeteOlcott]

The QUESTION HAS A 'Yes' OR 'No' ANSWER.

If you ask me whether or not I know how to bake a cake and I provide the
complete recipe and all of the steps for baking a cake, yes should be inferred.

But you have NOT YET provided the complete ANY 'thing' here.

Do 'you' KNOW WHERE 'certainty', 'truth', and/or 'definition' comes FROM, EXACTLY?

This is ALL there is to it!
Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true and
other finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving operations to the first set.