Relative knowledge, sure, but I think we were talking about absolute (or just knowledge as a general thing) knowledge here.
The "justified true belief" argument is fine for most forms of knowledge, but it has a flaws, as shown by Edmund Gettier:
The "justified true belief" argument is fine for most forms of knowledge, but it has a flaws, as shown by Edmund Gettier:
Quote:Smith has applied for a job, but, it is claimed, has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job". He also has a justified belief that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes (by the rule of the transitivity of identity) that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".
In fact, Jones does not get the job. Instead, Smith does. However, as it happens, Smith (unknowingly and by sheer chance) also had 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge.
