Who is the individual that we are supposed to focus on in your example? That is, who is the individual who ends up with the justified true belief that is not knowledge?

In his paper, Gettier offers two examples which, in his view, show that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. Some of the videos in this module offer yet more examples which are supposed to show the same thing. In your initial post, try to give your own example of justified true belief without knowledge.

Your example can be inspired or informed by the other examples found in this module, but try to make it as original or different as you can, while still making it an example which shows that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. Make sure you clearly explain how your example shows that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge.

Here are some things to keep in mind as you try to explain how your example proves that justified true belief is not enough for knowledge:

If your example really shows that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge, then there must be some individual in your example who has a justified and true belief in a certain proposition, and yet fails to know that proposition. So make sure it’s clear:
Who is the individual that we are supposed to focus on in your example? That is, who is the individual who ends up with the justified true belief that is not knowledge?
What is the proposition that that individual truly and justifiably believes, but fails to know?
Why is that proposition true, and why is the individual in question justified in believing it?
Why is it clear that, despite the individual’s justified and true belief in the proposition in question, they still fail to know it?

Last Completed Projects