Question

Can you give me an example of the JTB analysis? I really just need an example of it and not the formula. Thank you!

Answer 1

The term JTB ANALYSIS means Justified True Belief i.e here knowledge is regared as Justified True Belief. In the classical account knowledge was understood as a justified true belief where justification of one's belief consist of good reason for hinkingthat the belief in question is true. It also claims that justified true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge. Now the question arises what is knowledge? The word in knowledge is slippery. It is not always used in the same way. I our daily discourse,we often use the word "know" but we donot exactly know what is it? - to such question we only mention some examples of knowledge. For example if we say 'I know Mridula,' or 'I know how to play Violin', but all these are examples of knowledge,not the definition of knowledge. Sometimes we talk about knowing, we refer to knowing how, knowing how is an ability like I know how to swim, if I have the ability to swim and the test of whether I have the ability is whether in the appropriate situation I can perform the activity in question. Most of the philosopher are of opinion that meaning of the word "know"is the propositional sense. Knowledge is expressed through propositions.knowledge by acquaitance and knowing how are, in fact dependent on propositional knowledge.. Epistemology, one of the branch of Philosophy questioned -What is required for us to know that we have apropositional knowledge? Taking 'P' for any proposition there are conditions to be fulfilled in order for one to assert truely that he knows 'P'. the three main conditions of Epistemologist, where P stands for proposition and sS stands for Subject who has knowledge and 'P'are as follows: 1) P Must Be True:To know a proposition is true. One cannot know P,if P is not true. When one says he knows that Prof. Gupta has retired, it follows from this that it is true.I I say "know P, but Pis not true, then my statement is self contradictory, for part of what is involved in knowing P is that P is true.The truth of the proposition is the necessary condition of knowledge. Truth condition is an objective, and this condition separates knowledge from other mental activities. 2) We Must Believe That P Is True:But the Truth requirement is necessary but not sufficient. There are many propositions which are true, but we donot know them to be true. It is said that not only P mist be true, we must believe that Pis true. Belief -condition is subjective one. Like truth- belieg is necessary condition for knowledge, There can be no statement or proposition which we know to be true but dont since believing is a part of knowing. If truth and belief conditions are fulfilled can we say that we have knowledge? Can true knowledge be called as knowledge? True Belief is not a knowledge. A proposition may be true, and we may belief it to be true,and yet may not know to be true. For example John believes that there are sentient beings in Mars, and that in course of time, after space travellers from the Earth have landed there, John's belief turns out to be true. The statement was true at tthe time John uttered it, and John also believed it at the time he uttered it- but did John know it to be true at the time John uttered it? Certainly not. John was not in a position to know. It was a lucky guess. Some further condition therefore required to prevent a guess from passing as knowledge. 3)There Must Be Suffucuent Evidence For P (Reason To Believe P): The third condition is that one must have evidence for "P", reason to belief P. Evidence is the third condition. The conditions A.J. Ayer specially mentioned as being individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge are as follows- S knows That P, if and only if, a) P is True b) S is sure that P is true, and c) S has the right to be sure that P is true This is the justification - condition. Justification true belief can be called "Knowledge". Some justified true belief is called evident true belief. Step 1- Ayer begins by notig that it is not a sufficient condition for Sto know P that (i) S is sure P, and (ii) p is true. The source of S's belief that p must be generally reliable. For example a supertitious person who is sure that he will suffer misfortune while walking under a ladder, who happens to be right, still misfotune. This is because his supertitious belief about ladders is not generally reliable. Step 2- Ayrer considers whether we can arrive at standard of knowledge by determining what would be satisfactory answer to the question: How do you know? He opines that one's answer to this question is only satisfactory if thecsource ofknowledge is reliable in the particular case. For example if my eyesight is bad or the memory is poor they may fail to provide an adequate basis of knowledge, even if turn out to be right. However attempting to list of conditions under which perception, memory, testimony etcare reliable may be a moribud affair. Step 3- Ayer suggests that reliabiliy may be sufficient for knowledge even when the answer to the question, "How do you know" is not available. The most salient question seems to be whether or not has the right to be sure. For example - a man who is reliable at predicting lottery results may be credited with knowledge if his run of successis sufficiently impressive. Step 4- Ayer suggests that debates about whether or not it is possible to know that P are actually debates about whether or not one ever has the right to be sure that P. For example, The sceptic about knowledge is trying to get us to revise the meanung or use of the verb "to know" but rather is denying that we have the right to be sure. From the above discussion it can be concluded that epistemologists arenot trying to figure out the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, but rather trying to determine if and when one necessary conditionin particular has been met and when we have right to be sure