Jump to content
ThomasDB8

Gettier Problems

Recommended Posts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

 

Is there any practical application to this in the context of doing something like disproving disads or k's? I was thinking that it could be used to answer something like politics, where a candidates polling numbers dropped, but attributing that to something that is in the context of domestic surveillance is wrong because even though it is true that the numbers dropped and surveillance was being discussed by that candidate, it doesn't mean that curtailing domestic surveillance would be the cause of their polls dropping, and would rather just be an occurance that happened afterwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that that is what it is, but I also like the examples that are listed and how it is explained. I'll have to look into it more.

 

Also, I didn't immediately make the connection to correlation and causation. Thanks for pointing that out!

Edited by ThomasDB8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because it kinda is

no, not really at all. The distinction between belief and knowledge is very distinct from the distinction between correlation and causation.

 

edit: however what OP is discussing is the latter distinction.

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, not really at all. The distinction between belief and knowledge is very distinct from the distinction between correlation and causation.

 

edit: however what OP is discussing is the latter distinction.

Given what OP described, it kinda is 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend reading a Hume or Quine DA or maybe a Sextus Empericus DA too combined with this (maybe in some strange framework shell) to argue  policy aff/enframenet is bad along with a Nietzsche morality K or something. Basically just prove that the impact cal triad is not really a true apriori, there is always a gap of indeterminacy within internal links and that circumventing these logical questions is bad. Then say that debate should instead focus on the question of morality/ethics (should=/=ought) because it is more applicable and doesn't have to be scientific (unlike verifiable evidence used to create policy affirmatives).

Edited by FUDGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...