In 1963 Edmund Gettier challenged the notion of the JTB theory as the measure of knowledge. In it he used two examples to demonstrate how someone might believe they have excellent grounds for a truth proposal, the proposal might in fact be true, and the person making these proposals does in fact believe them, but the truth that he believes is in fact different than the reality - though still true.

This issue, forced a major modern realignment in the conception of knowledge and our consideration of how we understand the way that we know information.

See the original article below:

Socrates was reported by Plato to have said the following.

"The unexamined life is not worth living"

"Know yourself"

"I know that I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing."

"The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing."

"To know is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge"

"Windom begins in wonder"

These seemingly contradictory statements might be resolved by the idea that Plato considered stripping away the assumptions and dogma of life a means of further exploration and discovery - even if true complete knowledge is impossible. Further, questioning our knowledge and assumptions might help us to establish our own limitations - and thereby to better understand ourselves and our world.

Within this conception, skepticism is a tool by which to gain truer knowledge.

A version of this (called Academic Skepticism) was adopted around 266 BC by the Platonic Academy where degrees of truth, discovery and plausibility might be established which might help us to believe and act.

Pyrrho of Elis lived around approximately 270 BC and was a priest who served for the interpretation of augurs. He apparently travelled with Alexander the Great to India and seemingly adapted some of the ideas he encountered there, incorporating them into his world view.

His pupil Timon of Philus recorded his teachings. He seemingly taught that Platonic skepticism was right, but did not go far enough.

All things could be doubted and therefore judgement should be suspended on all things. Skepticism was not a tool by which to ascertain better knowledge, but was a means by which to a "zen-like" state of "ataraxia" - freedom from mental considerations and suspending all judgement on thought and perceptions.

For Pyrrho, skepticism was a way of life. The ability to doubt all things was used as a means to "float" neutrally - nothing was sure, and should just accept this and chill.

Pyrrho's work was seemingly influential in the ancient world, and other schools of thought followed branching off of and expanding some of his ideas.

Renee Descartes was the Frenchest Frenchman who ever did French.

Renee Descartes was a philosopher, mathematician, and scientist who served in the French Court acting as a tutor and resident scholar.

Descartes used skepticism as a means gain certainty; he asked the question, is there any knowledge that I can absolutely trust?

As a part of his reflections, Descartes noticed that all of his scientific measurements were reliant on his physical perceptions, but these could be mistaken or deceived. He noted that occasionally he felt things that were not actually present, that when he perceived the outside world that he saw things that were incorrect. Additionally, when we dream we are not always aware of the fact that we are dreaming, and we don't necessarily even question the reality presented to us while in a dream state. As a last point he makes the point that if there were an evil demon which controlled our reality, we might not necessarily be aware that the nature of our reality was skewed to deceive us.

Descartes concludes that there is no knowledge or experience which can be doubted, except for one fact and that is that he exists - be cause he himself is thinking and reflecting on that question. "Cogito ergo sum" - I think, therefore I am.

READ: First Meditations on the Classroom

D.T. Suzuki adapted Buddhist teachings on the concept to Zen to address some of the limits on knowledge within Western Philosophy.

D.T. Suzuki pointed out that much of Western Philosophy tries to break down knowledge into individualized, atomistic components. We want to know the ingredients and composition of something.

However D.T. Suzuki argued that this form of dissection, destroys the things itself that is being analyzed. That a flower, crushed, and distilled into its composite pieces ceases to be a flower. That we lose an important aspect of the knowledge of something when we break it down.

D.T. Suzuki argued that because we dissect the flower, we do not know that flower, but further we don't realize how the flower is connected the far larger and wider world.

This, he argued, is true not only of simple physical instances, but might also be seen in ideas.

"That is illogical Captain" has become a catchphrase in modern society, and variations of it are used everyday in conversation. Logic is understood almost intuitively, and recognized as an essential aspect of the nature of our lives and thoughts.

The word logic comes from the Greek word "logos", which can be translated as "reasoned thought" or "rational word". The word "logos" has a long a complex history with mountains of allusion and connotation in the Greek world, but we'll get to that later!

Logic is commonly understood to be reasoned system of thought that adheres to rules that reflect the inherent nature of truth, reality and our world. A further additional characteristic might be added in that there are certain inherent qualities within language itself that require it to maintain certain rules and measures for it to maintain its meaning.

Logic is often seen as using (at least) 2 forms of reasoning: induction and deduction.

Induction is the process of reasoning from a specific and particular example to a more general principle. Deduction is the process of reasoning from a general truth to a particular or specific application.

By the 1600s Francis Bacon, an English philosopher and statesman, was arguing for the importance of inductive reasoning as a tool means of advancing scientific knowledge and progress.

Bacon began to articulate the principles and process of the scientific method as a means to engage.

Deductive logic is a precise and ordered logical argument where the conclusion NECESSARILY follows from the premises.

There are different kinds of deductive arguments, they follow certain patterns of logic:

Three Common Types are:

Syllogism / Modus Ponens / Modus Tollens

Inductive logic is a form of logic which establishes that a conclusion is probably true by establishing likelihood based on premises

Francis Bacon (father of the Scientific Method) insisted that inductive logic needed to be more heavily relied upon, and shored up by repeated experimentation and verification. David Hume likewise championed and honed this form of logic.

This type of logic argues from what is known to what is unknown

By citing known examples of prior instances, or similar instances, inductive arguments attempt to predict future or unknown instances.

This is one of the primary types of logic used in scientific studies and data analysis.

EXAMPLE:

Most men in Ancient Athens had beard

Socrates was a man in Ancient Athens

C: Socrates likely had a beard

Abductive logic attempts to find the simplest and most likely conclusion from an observed set of data.

Much like inductive reasoning it can only assert the plausibility of the conclusion, but it cannot verify or provide certainty of the conclusion

Mastermind, the game, relies on this form of logic.

There are some criticisms of this logic that claim this relies simply on established patterns from your context, nonetheless we do this in it proves valuable and important in many contexts.

A logical fallacy is a pattern of error in a method of reasoning or thinking. Simply because an argument is fallacious, does not mean that it is untrue, but rather that it is not true because of the argument presented.

A fallacy is simply a incorrect form of argument which does not prove the conclusion in question. Some different types of fallacies are as follows:

What are some potential issues within these fallacies? Where might it get fuzzy?