Is ';Justified True Belief'; a valid basis for human knowledge?

I would personally say yes. But i don't really know how to explain.


Do you guys have any critical opinion about this philosophical thought?Is ';Justified True Belief'; a valid basis for human knowledge?
i say yes, because not everything can be experienced before we know is true. To belief that something is true, when you have a reason (justification of that belief) to do so is something we do all day. think for example of the green light of the traffic light, we belief that it will get green, because it always does. it has not changed yet but we know it will. furthermore, we know that today, at this moment, will get green. and we know this because yesterday it did, and the day before... what i want to say is that it is a basis for human rational knowledge. only a pure empiricist would put you an objection. but i think that pure empiricism is not sustainable for the fact that we can not have experience of all.Is ';Justified True Belief'; a valid basis for human knowledge?
';I will first need to outline some epistemological ideas about justification and defeaters.


';I begin with the notion of justification. A person is justified in believing that p because that person’s belief that p is based on her belief that q (and, in addition, some other conditions, to be mentioned later, are met). A belief that p is “justified” in a derivative sense, i.e., if it is the belief that p mentioned in the preceding sentence. A proposition is “justified” in a derivative sense if it is the proposition p mentioned in the preceding sentences.


';Some of the other conditions that must be met for a person to be justified in believing that p are stated in the following way. A person is justified in believing that p because that person’s belief that p is based on her belief that q and 1) q’s being true would be an epistemically good reason for the person to believe that p, and 2) any defeater which is an adequate ground for believing q is not an adequate reason for p or that q is not true is cognitively inaccessible to the person.';


Condensed by me from The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism by Quentin Smith http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith…





Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Smi… argues for justified true beliefs, and explains why, and explains what creates the justification for believing in ';p';, which he states above.





I've met Smith, used this paper in some of my own arguments, and it is my belief in my own ';justified true beliefs'; that got me to the top of the philosophy pyrimid when I was still ';Yaoi Shonen-ai';, before Yahoo deleted that account.
Bilief and Knowledge are fighting agenst each othe for maybe 3000 years.





Are simply (almost) oposite!
anyone who believes this is an idiot - and I can prove it

long hair cut