The murderer has size 10 feet

He can do this because A logically entails B: the inference from A to B is deductively valid. However, belief A is false because despite all the evidence to the contrary, Billy did not commit the crime in question. Perhaps he was actually at the scene around the time and his fingerprints were found there, because he was in the process of a burglary. The actual murderer, however, is Wild Willie Williams, who does indeed have size 10 feet. So while belief A may be false, belief B is true, the murderer does have size 10 feet. Furthermore, Sherlock's belief B fulfils the conditions for knowledge given by the tripartite account. Sherlock believes that the murderer has size 10 feet. His belief is true because Wild Willie Williams does indeed have size 10 feet. His belief is justified on the basis

9 'Is Knowledge Justified True Belief?', in Analysis, 1963.

of the evidence he has for his belief A from which he has validly inferred belief B. Thus Sherlock's belief that the murderer has size 10 feet is a justified true belief. If the tripartite account is a correct account of knowledge, we ought not to have any qualms about saying that Sherlock knows that the murderer has size 10 feet. Yet one feels uncomfortable concluding that Sherlock knows the size of the murderer's feet. One suspects that this has something to do with the fact that all the evidence provided for belief A, from which B was inferred, actually comes from Billy and not from the actual murderer.

A further, similar case confirms this hunch: Glitzie, Glossie, Barbie and Sindy are all actors auditioning for the lead role in a new television series, Bimbowatch. Understandably, they are all keen to get the part and are checking out their rivals. Glossie has evidence for the following belief:

0 0

Post a comment