[fmoralesc]

One assumption there is that testimony can provide you with justification. We are told by the article that Edmund Gettier has died earlier this year, and we seem to be justified in believing that. In that case, let's assume, justification and truth matches. But this isn't the case always. You may see that the color of the wall is red, for example, and may feel prima facie justified in believing that the wall is red. But it may be the case that, unknown to you, there is a red light projected over the wall, which is actually cream color. In an absolute sense, you are wrong, but your belief is still justified. 'Justified' and 'true' are used for different purposes.

[allturtles]

Okay, I buy that, you can have a justified belief that isn't true, if justification is itself subjective/probabilistic rather than deductive.

Then this paper argues that you can have a justified belief that is true, but still isn't knowledge. Why? Because the justification is faulty. Well sure, since we've admitted in the first place that justifications can be faulty. So why would you ever assume that they invariably lead to knowledge? Had the concept of believing right thing for the wrong reasons not been invented in the 1960s?

I just can't get myself into a mindset where this is a revelatory finding, but maybe I'm too steeped in a bayesian worldview.

[natt941]

Just to be clear, it isn't that people though justification (which, yes, can be probabilistic/non-deductive) invariable leads to knowledge, and these aren't supposed to be cases of believing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Suppose you grant that justification is probabilistic. What's the extra condition that makes justified belief count as knowledge? Pre-Gettier, one might have been inclined to say that it's that your justified belief is actually right—what you believe is true. Gettier's point is that this can't be the full explanation of the difference between merely justified belief and knowledge.

Similarly, suppose you grant that one can have true belief that falls short of knowledge because one lacks "right reasons". Well, "right reasons" is a tricky notion, but suppose this means something like good evidence, or more generally, the sorts of reasons that we take to show your reasoning in a responsible way. Again, Gettier's point is that good evidence or responsible belief (assuming this isn't limited to deduction from things that you're certain about) isn't sufficient to make true belief into knowledge.

(Fwiw, Gettier wasn't the first person to point this out, but he did it in an especially vivid way which got a lot of people thinking hard about what else you needed to say if you were going to explain the difference between mere justified true belief and knowledge.)

[fmoralesc]

The problem is that if your definition of knowledge requires only three conditions (belief, truth and justification), then it has counterexamples, namely, the Gettier cases. So we need to either revise our concept of justification (for example, make it so that a knowledge-apt belief is justified only if it is for the right reasons -- but then, how to account for justified but false beliefs?), look for ways to supplement the analysis with additional conditions (for example, that the conditions are satisfied in a robust ways counterfactually), or reject the idea that knowledge can be analyzed altogether.

To make it more concrete how this sort of thing can get complicated quickly, consider your own explanation of the case. As I take it, you think that the issue is that "the justification is faulty". But how is it faulty, besides not being true (remember, we have reasons to want justification to not imply truth)? And also, there are Gettier-like cases where we cannot say that justification is faulty or where we can't find false premises (for example, cases where it seems like the problem is that the individuals in questions are not in an appropriate environment, see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem#False_premises...)).