You are on page 1of 5

Literature review

Zoe Reynolds
Mr. Lindow
4/10/15

What exactly is truth? Many Philosophers and mind altering people are puzzled by this
one question. Why its so hard to contemplate how people actually decipher the difference
between truths. In this literature review,it will explain the many differences between philosophers
truths and if these people really did crack the nature of truth.

Bertrand Russell excelled in mathematics, science, history, religion, politics, education,


and,of course, philosophy. This brilliant man believed that truth, was inevitable. He once said It
is possible that life is one long dream, and that the outer world has only that degree of reality
that the objects of dreams have; but although such a view does not seem inconsistent with
known facts, there is no reason to prefer it to the common-sense view, according to which other
people and things do really exist. So coincidentally truth isnt as stable as prematurely thought
of. According to Russell,our own beliefs of truths, is really unlike the beliefs of things around us,
it has an extremely opposite error. As far as these things are concerned, we may know them or
not know. Let it be clear that there is no positive state of mind which can be described as non
factual knowledge of things.

Whatever we encounter must be at least something; we may draw non factual


knowledge from others , but the person themselves cannot be deceptive in any way. Because of
this, there is no reason to regard others. We can and will believe that somethings are false and
some are actually factual. Everyone knows that each individual believes are different than
others, which is why some beliefs must be wrong.

Since beliefs in non factual statements are usually held just as strongly as true beliefs, it
becomes a question to ask how they are to be deceiver-ed from true beliefs. How should we

know if what we believe is wrong or not? This is a very impossible question to which no answer
is likely.
Another Philosopher of acknowledging is Edmund Gettier who was a Professor at the
University of Massachusetts. He created counterexamples to a traditional formulation of
knowledge, and believed that the sane if and only if is false,that it doesnt suffice the truth. With
this objective of the analysis of knowledge. Gettier problems are named in honor of Edmund
Gettier, who discovered them in 1963. Their purpose is challenges to the tradition of
distinguishing knowledge of a proposition as justified true belief. The problems are actual
situations in which a person has a belief that is both true and well supported by sufficient
evidence, yet which according to almost all those studying it, fails to be acknowledged. His
original paper had an impact on many, they began trying to figure out what knowledge is, with
almost all agreeing that Gettier had the traditional definition of knowledge.

They have made many attempts to repair that traditional definition of knowledge by
Gettier, but alas it resulted in several news of knowledge. In this , Gettier embarked a period of
pronounced energy and innovation all with one article about his thoughts on knowledge. There
is, however, no way any of the attempts to solve the Gettier challenge, has succeeded in fully
explaining what it is to have knowledge of truth.

So, the impact of the challenge continues to be dealt with in various ways.
Sometimes,the research is ignored in frustration at the existence of so many possibly failed
efforts to crack the code. Some still believe one of these days it will be solved.

Alvin Goldman there are different roles that cause elements and notions like reliability
can play in an epistemological theory. Suppose seeing an object but then you have evidence
that what you are seeing is produced in an unreliable way,in such a way that you question is
that object really there,making your experience second guessing to your own believing of the
object being there. A more controversial solution is the Gettier Problem, Goldman believes that
the solutions that knowledge requires evidence or justification and instead just trying to put the
point across that knowledge as a true belief ,satisfies causal conditions. To Goldman reliability is
what you add to true beliefs instead evidence or justification in order to retrieve k knowledge.
Epistemology is the view, instead of replacing the notion of justification in an account of
knowledge, reliability is what makes a belief justified. Goldman came to hold such a view
several years after and defends his view in is article What is Justified belief?

Goldman discusses several different accounts of justification that he finds not reliable.
Some of his beliefs that have significant epistemic properties are indubitable,selfpresenting,infallible which means the property cannot be false,and incorrigible which means it
cannot be corrected. As he discusses that each of these accounts can be interpreted in many
different ways.

In justifications according to Goldman all beliefs are produced by reliable processes.


Alvin Goldman believed in the truth being one or the other,not something that can be specifically
proven but with analysis can become close to true belief.

I think that as my beliefs and what I perceive to the questionWhat is truth? I believe that out of
all these philosophers I have chosen that Goldman is the one I least agree with. I believe that

truth can be there and not,that even though I dont have the evidence or I dont know for sure
that its there doesnt mean its not the truth. That is exactly what I have to think about involving
God and faith. Even though there is no evidence of God that he is with us,I still believe it to be
true.

Bibliography

"Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
R. ""What Is Truth? by Bertrand Russell." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
Goldman, Alvin. "Justification of Truth." (n.d.): n. pag. Justification of Truth. Web.

You might also like