Skip to main content

Can Knowledge Be Justified True Belief?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science ((WONS,volume 75))

Abstract

The view that knowledge can usefully be interpreted as justified true belief has fallen into disfavor in recent times. David Lewis observes that the use of such a definition seems to require an apparently impossible choice between the rock of fallibilism and the whirlpool of skepticism, but that we can—just barely—escape both perils by steering with care (Lewis, 1996). This paper offers a more radical defense of the same conclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that possibility in Section 3 is taken to be the failure to get a no when the justification machine is asked whether something is possible. But this is not the same as getting a yes to the same question.

Bibliography

  • Aumann, R. (1987). Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica, 55:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. (1987). Modeling rational players I. Economics and Philosophy, 3:9–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. (1992a). Debayesing game theory. In Skyrms, B., editor, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Game Theory: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. (1992b). Foundations of game theory. In Laffont, J. J., editor, Advances in Economic Theory: Cambridge, 1992. Sixth World Congress of the Econometric Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. (1992c). Fun and Games. D. C. Heath, Lexington, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. and Shin, H. (1992). Algorithmic knowledge and game theory. In Bicchieri, C. and Chiara, M., editors, Knowledge, Belief and Strategic Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23:121–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australian Journal of Philosophy, 74:549–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. (1951). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken Binmore CBE, FBA .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Binmore, K. (2011). Can Knowledge Be Justified True Belief?. In: DeVidi, D., Hallett, M., Clarke, P. (eds) Logic, Mathematics, Philosophy, Vintage Enthusiasms. The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 75. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0214-1_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics