by Phin Upham

Mr. Biggs, the owner of a vast industrial empire, wants to have the fastest computer in the world for his company.  In order to accomplish this, he hires the best computer people to build him his computer.  They labor and labor until finally they create a 100 KB HD, 66 RAM, modified Cray computer which they tell him (and show him evidence that) it is the fastest computer ever built (t).  Mr. Biggs trusts these people (p) and he generates from their words the belief that he has been told by people that have never before lied to him that his company has the fastest computer in the world (f).  From this belief (f) he in turn generates the belief that his company has the fastest computer in the world (w).  Unbenounced to Mr. Biggs there is an even faster computer o the planet.  Mr. Smalls, who happens to work in accounting in Mr. Biggs’ company, has built in his office an even faster computer (z).

This Gettier type case demonstrates that there is more to knowledge than justified true belief.  Mr. Biggs believes that his company has the fastest computer in the world (f), and he is justified in this belief because he the computer experts told him it was the fastest (t), and they were always trustworthy in the past (p).  Lastly, the belief is true because of Mr. Smalls’ computer (z).  But I would not say that Mr. Biggs knows that (w).  The major impediment to his knowledge is that although (w) is true, it is only true coincidentally.   What attribute do (must?) all the Gettier type cases have in common?  It every case a belief is generated by one set of apparently true but ultimately false set of facts, then the belief is generalized (defocused).  Then a new fact that is contained under the newly generalized/expanded belief makes the general belief true.  The justification and the belief still come from the original now-falsified fact.

Since an infallibilist about knowledge would only know things on the basis of infallible evidence, and the evidence in the Gettier cases is necessarily fallible, the Gettier cases cannot get off the ground.  The infallibilist is immune to this sort of example.  An infallibilist is immune to making mistakes and beliefs that the infallibilist holds cannot be false..  The belief that (z) need not be true, it is true through luck alone.  Thus an infallibilist would never hold this belief.  The evidence of the computer experts was wrong.  Thus an infallibilist would never use this evidence.

About the Author

Phin Upham is an investor who lives in NYC and San Francisco.  He has studied at Harvard University and Wharton Business School (UPenn) and is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.