How does Robert Nozick explain the Gettier problem?



Nozick agrees that the Gettier counterexamples to the JTB analysis of knowledge are cases where someone has a JTB but does not know. What is his explanation of what has gone wrong in those cases? Specifically what conditions in Nozick’s account of knowledge are not satisfied?

Kevin Davis

Posted 2012-04-01T19:59:49.320

Reputation: 439

Is it his counterfactual statements? – Kevin Davis – 2012-04-01T20:03:38.957

What does JTB mean? – Ron Maimon – 2012-04-01T22:51:05.880

3JTB = "Justifed True Belief" – Rex Kerr – 2012-04-02T01:27:56.543



Yes I believe it is his counterfactual statements.

One’s true belief that p is knowledge if and only if the following two conditions hold:

  • if p were not the case, one would not believe that p,
  • and if p were the case, one would believe that p.

I've only just started to research it myself, but this might help:

Ben Jackson

Posted 2012-04-01T19:59:49.320

Reputation: 349