Nathan Johnston: 'Revisiting Gettier: What Does it Take to Believe That p?'
Responses to the Gettier problem often focus on justification, further proposed necessary conditions for knowledge, or knowledge itself. Considerably less attention has been given to belief. In this talk, I argue that the ‘naïve’ notion of belief being taken for granted in discussion about Gettier cases leads us into error. I show how the Gettier cases rely on the naïve notion of belief to be successful as counterexamples and propose a revised notion of belief. I argue that the revised notion does a better job of accounting for what is going on in Gettier cases and how such cases fail to be counterexamples to relevant analyses for knowledge when the revised notion is accepted.
