Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases

On 9/2/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/2/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-01 12:56:16 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/31/2024 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:

*I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>
knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
justification is sufficient reason to accept the
truth of the belief.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
>

>
With a Justified true belief, in the Gettier cases
the observer does not know enough to know its true
yet it remains stipulated to be true.
>
My original correction to this was a JTB such that the
justification necessitates the truth of the belief.
>
With a [Sufficiently Justified belief], it is stipulated
that the observer does have a sufficient reason to accept
the truth of the belief.

>
What could be a sufficient reason? Every justification of every
belief involves other belifs that could be false.
>

 For the justification to be sufficient the consequence of
the belief must be semantically entailed by its justification.

How does that handle the case where described where the error is in the interpreation of the observatin.

 When the truth of a belief is a necessary consequence of its
justification then this justification is necessarily sufficient.

But what it the justification was wrong?

 "This article talks about planets in our solar system"
https://www.space.com/16080-solar-system-planets.html
Is verified by the article talking about planets in our solar system.

But, how do you know that it is a CORRECT description of the planets, or uses the correct definition of planets?

 Believing the the boiling point of water is about 212 degrees F
on the basis of looking it up in a textbook also seems to be
a sufficient reason.
 

Then you better live near sea level, or you will be wrong, it appear that the boiling point of water in Denver is about 202 F (95C).
Also, textbooks can be wrong.
After all, Textbooks say that the Halting Problem is unsolvable, so either you admit that you have wasted decades going after something that you are now trying to say must had sufficient justification, or you admit that your current idea is just wrong.