True-Justified-Belief, why are all 3 components necessary for knowledge and why none of the 3 are sufficient?

Think of it as the existence of an object (e.g., a distant planet).





It could be true that such a planet exists--maybe one just pass Uranus (since Pluto is now not considered a planet). Objectively, saying that the planet exists is true but not sufficient.





If one finds evidence to justify the assertion that their is such a planet, then it is not only true but also justified (by some reason or rationale). This, however, is not sufficient.





At last, we need to have belief in the justification (e.g., find no logical flaws in its methods or see that it is, in fact, a justification of the object/truth). Thus, only then, do we have the totality of conditions for it to be sufficient.True-Justified-Belief, why are all 3 components necessary for knowledge and why none of the 3 are sufficient?
There's a famous article on this that's only a couple of pages long. I think you might find it helpful; there are some great examples. I've linked it in my sources below.





Please ignore it if you find it confusing. I don't know what level of philosophy you're at, and I don't want to make this any more difficult than it already is.

comment boxes for myspace