[Cushman]

It’s not super clear there, but those are examples of a pre-Gettier type of argument that originally motivated strengthening, and externalizing, the J in JTB knowledge— just like you’re doing!

Gettier’s contribution — the examples with Smith — sharpens it to a point by making the “knowledge” a logical proposition — in one example a conjunction, in one a disjunction — such that we can assert that Smith’s belief in the premise is justified, while allowing the premise to be false in the world.

It’s a fun dilemma: the horns are, you can give up justification as sufficient, or you can give up logical entailment of justification.

But it’s also a bit quaint, these days. To your typical 21st century epistemologist, that’s just not a very terrifying dilemma.

One can even keep buying original recipe JTB, as long as one is willing to bite the bullet that we can flip the “knowledge” bit by changing superficially irrelevant states of the world. And hey, why not?

[ryanjamurphy]

> But it’s also a bit quaint, these days. To your typical 21st century epistemologist, that’s just not a very terrifying dilemma. One can even keep buying original recipe JTB [...]

Sorry, naive questions: what is a terrifying dilemma to 21st century epistemologist? What is the "modern" recipe?