[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-33363":3,"doc-seo-33363":26},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"file_id":15,"file_url":16,"file_type":17,"file_size":18,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":19,"is_downloadable":19,"audit_status":19,"page_count":20,"language":21,"language_code":22,"table_of_contents":23,"faqs":24,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":25,"read_time":11},33363,5909877438554,"Maeve","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/5600025385ad2bf12a7?_k=1778553567797529272",8,"Research & Report","Is Justified True Belief Knowledge","The text presents Edmund Gettier’s 1963 argument against common “justified true belief” analyses of knowledge. It reviews standard proposals where knowing that P requires P’s truth, the subject’s belief in P, and justification (or adequate evidence/right to be sure). Gettier then constructs two counterexamples in which the conditions for justified belief and truth hold, yet the subject does not know the proposition, because the belief is true for the wrong reason.","cbCaiafZkLF8Xsyl","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiafZkLF8Xsyl","pdf",11645,1,3,"English","en","# Overview\n# Standard Conditions for Knowledge\n# Gettier’s Counterexamples\n## Case I\n## Case II\n# Conclusion and Notes","[{\"question\":\"What are the standard conditions for knowledge discussed in the text?\",\"answer\":\"The text describes analyses where S knows that P iff P is true, S believes P, and S is justified in believing P. It also mentions versions using accepting P, adequate evidence, or having the right to be sure.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Case I challenge justified true belief?\",\"answer\":\"Smith is justified in believing a proposition inferred from strong evidence, and the inferred proposition turns out true. However, it is true due to facts Smith does not know, so Smith does not actually know the proposition.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Case II further show the insufficiency of the proposed definitions?\",\"answer\":\"Smith’s strong evidence supports several disjunctions that he correctly infers and accepts as justified beliefs. Yet when Jones lacks a Ford and Brown’s location coincides with one disjunction, Smith believes a true proposition without knowing it, undermining the sufficiency claim.\"}]",1782207746,{"code":4,"msg":27,"data":28},"ok",{"site_id":29,"language":22,"slug":30,"title":13,"keywords":31,"description":14,"schema_data":32,"social_meta":83,"head_meta":85,"extra_data":87,"updated_unix":25},105,"is-justified-true-belief-knowledge","",{"@graph":33,"@context":82},[34,50,65],{"@type":35,"itemListElement":36},"BreadcrumbList",[37,41,45,47],{"item":38,"name":39,"@type":40,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":42,"name":43,"@type":40,"position":44},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":46,"name":12,"@type":40,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",{"item":48,"name":13,"@type":40,"position":49},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/is-justified-true-belief-knowledge/33363/",4,{"url":48,"name":13,"@type":51,"author":52,"headline":13,"publisher":54,"fileFormat":57,"description":14,"dateModified":58,"datePublished":59,"encodingFormat":57,"isAccessibleForFree":60,"interactionStatistic":61},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":53},"Person",{"url":38,"name":55,"@type":56},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-06-24","2026-06-23",true,{"@type":62,"interactionType":63,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":64},"ViewAction",{"@type":66,"mainEntity":67},"FAQPage",[68,74,78],{"name":69,"@type":70,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What are the standard conditions for knowledge discussed in the text?","Question",{"text":72,"@type":73},"The text describes analyses where S knows that P iff P is true, S believes P, and S is justified in believing P. It also mentions versions using accepting P, adequate evidence, or having the right to be sure.","Answer",{"name":75,"@type":70,"acceptedAnswer":76},"How does Case I challenge justified true belief?",{"text":77,"@type":73},"Smith is justified in believing a proposition inferred from strong evidence, and the inferred proposition turns out true. However, it is true due to facts Smith does not know, so Smith does not actually know the proposition.",{"name":79,"@type":70,"acceptedAnswer":80},"How does Case II further show the insufficiency of the proposed definitions?",{"text":81,"@type":73},"Smith’s strong evidence supports several disjunctions that he correctly infers and accepts as justified beliefs. Yet when Jones lacks a Ford and Brown’s location coincides with one disjunction, Smith believes a true proposition without knowing it, undermining the sufficiency claim.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":48,"og:type":84,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":55,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":86,"canonical":48},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":29}]