Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Agent Smith »

The plumber is here.

Show him to the kitchen.

Hi!

Hello! Leak/block?

Both?! We have no idea!

[Tap tap tap ...]

We should go!

How long?

May be half-an-hour!

We'll still have 10 minutes to spare!

Perfecto!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Iwannaplato »

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:44 am We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.
[working from 'proves]
What are the infallible criteria? And who are the infallible judges that they are present?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:44 am We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.
Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

In a Classical setting the sentence "Tomorrow you may or may not die." is true axiomatically via excluded middle - it satisfies JTB and qualifies as knowledge.

If that's what you call "knowledge" it's worth less than toilet paper.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Agent Smith »

Gettier, requiescat in pace, is an absolute genius and he was a priest and he married off two very drunk people ... probably in Las Vegas. Where else? :mrgreen:
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:13 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:44 am We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.
[working from 'proves]
What are the infallible criteria? And who are the infallible judges that they are present?
My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.

Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Iwannaplato »

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:00 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:13 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:44 am We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.
[working from 'proves]
What are the infallible criteria? And who are the infallible judges that they are present?
My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.
This part I don't understand. Hell, they could be tweaking your brain so that while looking at the image of an elephant you have the conclusion that it's your tv. IOW it actually isn't an image of a TV, but you, due to tweaking draw that conclusion. IOW you never even see an image of a tv, let alone your tv. A kind of aphasia. Or it's a room that was built by some Kurbrick madman and while it is a tv and a living room, it's not yours, it's a copy. And does it matter if it's a dream or a memory?

And also, that's generally not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge is usually a set of things considered correct by a community. It's not knowledge for others. I can see why you would believe it, but it's not something you can use to demonstrate to others.

Knowledge isn't stuff you're sure of.
Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
Sure, and again you might be drawing incorrect conclusions. YOu get the 'I analyzed that correctly' quale. But years later realize it was not a valid analytical conclusion. And yes, I know those are quite simple. But, hey, fallible humans.

And even you could know these things, it's not a lot of knowledge for my day, getting buy, understanding things. I'd be able to rule out some conclusions related to communication. I'd know Jimmy wasn't married because he is a bachelor ------ but wait, perhaps he lied about being a bachelor.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:32 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:00 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:13 am [working from 'proves]
What are the infallible criteria? And who are the infallible judges that they are present?
My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.
This part I don't understand. Hell, they could be tweaking your brain so that while looking at the image of an elephant you have the conclusion that it's your tv. IOW it actually isn't an image of a TV, but you, due to tweaking draw that conclusion. IOW you never even see an image of a tv, let alone your tv. A kind of aphasia. Or it's a room that was built by some Kurbrick madman and while it is a tv and a living room, it's not yours, it's a copy. And does it matter if it's a dream or a memory?

And also, that's generally not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge is usually a set of things considered correct by a community. It's not knowledge for others. I can see why you would believe it, but it's not something you can use to demonstrate to others.

Knowledge isn't stuff you're sure of.
Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
Sure, and again you might be drawing incorrect conclusions. YOu get the 'I analyzed that correctly' quale. But years later realize it was not a valid analytical conclusion. And yes, I know those are quite simple. But, hey, fallible humans.

And even you could know these things, it's not a lot of knowledge for my day, getting buy, understanding things. I'd be able to rule out some conclusions related to communication. I'd know Jimmy wasn't married because he is a bachelor ------ but wait, perhaps he lied about being a bachelor.
So then it might be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 was never true and everyone
has been deceived 2 + 3 has always been a plate of burned brownies that
have been crushed on the floor?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Iwannaplato »

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 8:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:32 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:00 pm

My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.
This part I don't understand. Hell, they could be tweaking your brain so that while looking at the image of an elephant you have the conclusion that it's your tv. IOW it actually isn't an image of a TV, but you, due to tweaking draw that conclusion. IOW you never even see an image of a tv, let alone your tv. A kind of aphasia. Or it's a room that was built by some Kurbrick madman and while it is a tv and a living room, it's not yours, it's a copy. And does it matter if it's a dream or a memory?

And also, that's generally not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge is usually a set of things considered correct by a community. It's not knowledge for others. I can see why you would believe it, but it's not something you can use to demonstrate to others.

Knowledge isn't stuff you're sure of.
Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
Sure, and again you might be drawing incorrect conclusions. YOu get the 'I analyzed that correctly' quale. But years later realize it was not a valid analytical conclusion. And yes, I know those are quite simple. But, hey, fallible humans.

And even you could know these things, it's not a lot of knowledge for my day, getting buy, understanding things. I'd be able to rule out some conclusions related to communication. I'd know Jimmy wasn't married because he is a bachelor ------ but wait, perhaps he lied about being a bachelor.
So then it might be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 was never true and everyone
has been deceived 2 + 3 has always been a plate of burned brownies that
have been crushed on the floor?
1) that's a very incomplete response to, I think, only one part of what I wrote.
2) you didn't engage with the arguments. If you think the above somehow disproves or calls into questions some part of what I wrote, make it clear which part and why. I can't see how it has anything at all to do with the tv living room scenario, but let me know.
3) let's look at your example - you are acting as if I am asserting that 2+3=5 is always wrong. Read that again. In your counterargument you are acting like I am saying that is always wrong. NOTHING I said even implies this. This is a very common confusion. If I say you can't be sure of X. It does NOT mean I am saying X is false.

I was talking about a specific instance where one thinks one knows that that is correct. You are the one who brought up brain in a vat scenarios. In such a scenario EVEN regarding a simple equation we might think we are right and be wrong. We could be wrong in a dream and not realize we are in a dream.
In single instances or in altered states or perhaps in general in a brain in a vat.

But another point you ignored EVEN IF we grant analytical truths, that's not much knowledge about life, the world, etc. None of that would be knowledge.

There were other points you did not respond to.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 5:33 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 8:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:32 pm This part I don't understand. Hell, they could be tweaking your brain so that while looking at the image of an elephant you have the conclusion that it's your tv. IOW it actually isn't an image of a TV, but you, due to tweaking draw that conclusion. IOW you never even see an image of a tv, let alone your tv. A kind of aphasia. Or it's a room that was built by some Kurbrick madman and while it is a tv and a living room, it's not yours, it's a copy. And does it matter if it's a dream or a memory?

And also, that's generally not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge is usually a set of things considered correct by a community. It's not knowledge for others. I can see why you would believe it, but it's not something you can use to demonstrate to others.

Knowledge isn't stuff you're sure of.

Sure, and again you might be drawing incorrect conclusions. YOu get the 'I analyzed that correctly' quale. But years later realize it was not a valid analytical conclusion. And yes, I know those are quite simple. But, hey, fallible humans.

And even you could know these things, it's not a lot of knowledge for my day, getting buy, understanding things. I'd be able to rule out some conclusions related to communication. I'd know Jimmy wasn't married because he is a bachelor ------ but wait, perhaps he lied about being a bachelor.
So then it might be the case that 2 + 3 = 5 was never true and everyone
has been deceived 2 + 3 has always been a plate of burned brownies that
have been crushed on the floor?
1) that's a very incomplete response to, I think, only one part of what I wrote.
2) you didn't engage with the arguments. If you think the above somehow disproves or calls into questions some part of what I wrote, make it clear which part and why. I can't see how it has anything at all to do with the tv living room scenario, but let me know.
3) let's look at your example - you are acting as if I am asserting that 2+3=5 is always wrong. Read that again. In your counterargument you are acting like I am saying that is always wrong. NOTHING I said even implies this. This is a very common confusion. If I say you can't be sure of X. It does NOT mean I am saying X is false.

I was talking about a specific instance where one thinks one knows that that is correct. You are the one who brought up brain in a vat scenarios. In such a scenario EVEN regarding a simple equation we might think we are right and be wrong. We could be wrong in a dream and not realize we are in a dream.
In single instances or in altered states or perhaps in general in a brain in a vat.

But another point you ignored EVEN IF we grant analytical truths, that's not much knowledge about life, the world, etc. None of that would be knowledge.

There were other points you did not respond to.
I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind. It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 6:24 am I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind. It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.
Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

Where is your precise definition of the nature of precision? Without such a definition as basis - how will you know if any definition of knowledge is precise enough?

The whole idea of proving that your formal system posesses the properties and qualities you claim it posesses is entirely lost on you.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Agent Smith »

The million dollar questions are:

1) Why is Edmund Gettier (RIP) not happy?

2) Why did he leave his work non finito?

3) Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information? [Me biting the hands that fe(e)d me!] I can see Wikipedia looking at me, tears in its eyes, and with its last breath, saying "Et tu Brute?!"
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Iwannaplato »

PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 6:24 am I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind. It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.
I believe that knowledge exists, though I don't expect 100% certainty for it. I think we need to acknowledge the potential for fallibility with most things, especially empirically arrived at conclusions, however there can still be a useful distinction between knowledge and other beliefs. IOW we have rigorous, if not infallible, criteria. Yes, sometimes we may end up considering something to be knowledge that later turns out not to be the case. But it still allows us to work with some beliefs and not others. This is much how science works.

My issue with your first definition was that it leaves out, for example, pretty much all of science. Now that's fine, if that's works for you and you make it all clear. I think it is useful, for example, to consider many conclusions in science to be knowledge. I think that's a useful way of working, even if it is not perfectly infallible. There are other things I would include within knowledge despite the criteria not managing to rule out any possible error, misinterpretation or falsehood. I think that's also realistic.

Otherwise I don't think there's much left over. And I don't think your seeing the TV in your living room example works as completely infallible knowledge. And for a few reasons. If you want an AI that does math and can deduce certain conclusions using word definitions, well fine, keep it really restrictive. I think even with analytical conclusions errors are still possible in instances, but there's not reason an AI couldn't be built with that limited skill set.

Also I think there's a problem with the example of the person seeing their TV. Now, me personally, if I think I am sitting in my living room seeing my TV, I will treat that as certain - perhaps I'll wake up or something, but I'm also confident of my ability to differentiate dream from waking. That said it's not really knowledge in the sense of community knowledge.

The latter has to do with things where we can check the justification and draw conclusions that get added to the knowledge of the community. I mean, at least usually.

Of course one can define knowledge as one wants. I don't know what your goals for the AI are, so that would affect criteria. But, for example, if the AI is going to navigate, physicall environments, it's need some kind of fallible but very effective set of heuristics. Fallible because it make misinterpret shadows and forms and depth of field and so on. If it is analyzing camera data, again unless you want it to throw out pretty much every conclusion, it's going to need a conception of knowledge that is potentially fallible. If it is working with language in communication with humans, again, potentially fallible. Semantics is not like the rules of chess, the meanings of words are to some degree fuzzily defined.

If the AI is going to do math problems, fine.

It's been a while since I looked at Gettier problems but it seems to me those deal with conclusions in empirical situtions not analytical types of conclusions. So, if you are going to restrict knowledge to just analytical then Gettier isn't relevant. It's not like those problems are solved, the whole realm of conclusions is taken off the table.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 2:44 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 6:24 am I always work inward from the boundary conditions. I am trying to precisely
define the nature of knowledge as the basis for the architecture for an AI
mind. It seems that you are saying something along the lines that you simply
do not believe that knowledge exists. That is not the kind of knowledge that
I am referring to.
I believe that knowledge exists, though I don't expect 100% certainty for it. I think we need to acknowledge the potential for fallibility with most things, especially empirically arrived at conclusions, however there can still be a useful distinction between knowledge and other beliefs. IOW we have rigorous, if not infallible, criteria. Yes, sometimes we may end up considering something to be knowledge that later turns out not to be the case. But it still allows us to work with some beliefs and not others. This is much how science works.

My issue with your first definition was that it leaves out, for example, pretty much all of science. Now that's fine, if that's works for you and you make it all clear. I think it is useful, for example, to consider many conclusions in science to be knowledge. I think that's a useful way of working, even if it is not perfectly infallible. There are other things I would include within knowledge despite the criteria not managing to rule out any possible error, misinterpretation or falsehood. I think that's also realistic.

Otherwise I don't think there's much left over. And I don't think your seeing the TV in your living room example works as completely infallible knowledge. And for a few reasons. If you want an AI that does math and can deduce certain conclusions using word definitions, well fine, keep it really restrictive. I think even with analytical conclusions errors are still possible in instances, but there's not reason an AI couldn't be built with that limited skill set.

Also I think there's a problem with the example of the person seeing their TV. Now, me personally, if I think I am sitting in my living room seeing my TV, I will treat that as certain - perhaps I'll wake up or something, but I'm also confident of my ability to differentiate dream from waking. That said it's not really knowledge in the sense of community knowledge.

The latter has to do with things where we can check the justification and draw conclusions that get added to the knowledge of the community. I mean, at least usually.

Of course one can define knowledge as one wants. I don't know what your goals for the AI are, so that would affect criteria. But, for example, if the AI is going to navigate, physicall environments, it's need some kind of fallible but very effective set of heuristics. Fallible because it make misinterpret shadows and forms and depth of field and so on. If it is analyzing camera data, again unless you want it to throw out pretty much every conclusion, it's going to need a conception of knowledge that is potentially fallible. If it is working with language in communication with humans, again, potentially fallible. Semantics is not like the rules of chess, the meanings of words are to some degree fuzzily defined.

If the AI is going to do math problems, fine.

It's been a while since I looked at Gettier problems but it seems to me those deal with conclusions in empirical situtions not analytical types of conclusions. So, if you are going to restrict knowledge to just analytical then Gettier isn't relevant. It's not like those problems are solved, the whole realm of conclusions is taken off the table.
I think that we can be 100% perfectly certain that cats are animals and not ten story office buildings on the basis that {cats}, {animals}, {ten story office buildings} are simply place holders for a stipulated set of properties. Because these things are true by definition they can't possibly be false. In other words the model of the world is an axiomatic system of semantic tautologies. I count this as the body of analytic truth. The coherence model of truth applies to this body.

When it comes to the correspondence from (what at least appears to be) physical sensations and this model of the world it is possible that fallibility enters. This is the (misnamed as synthetic) body of empirical truth.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:00 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 6:13 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:44 am We could simply define knowledge as a fully justified true belief such that the justification
conclusively proves that the belief is true.
[working from 'proves]
What are the infallible criteria? And who are the infallible judges that they are present?
My belief that there is a television in my living room right now is fully justified by
seeing a television in my living room right now.

This remains true if I am a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer. When-so-ever
a set of what appears to be physical sensations correctly maps to the elements of
the model of the world we have truth and knowledge.
This here is Wrong and Incorrect because of the use of the 'appear' word here.
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 4:00 pm Alternatively we could disavow all empirical knowledge and call this conjecture instead.
This only leave analytical knowledge. Analytical knowledge is a set of mutually self-defining
semantic tautologies. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
A statement IS 'True' IF PROOF for 'that statement' IS KNOWN.

If PROOF for a statement IS NOT YET KNOW, then 'that statement' COULD BE 'true'. That is; if PROOF for 'that statement' being 'False' IS NOT KNOWN.

In other words, ANY statement can only be Truly JUSTIFIED WITH ACTUAL PROOF.

'BELIEF' of or for absolutely ANY 'thing' is completely REDUNDANT here, and is BEST left OUT OF 'the equation', altogether.
Post Reply