You must log in or register to comment.
That’s not true, though. It’s just a trick. If tricks are all it takes, then most magic tricks are justified and true in their intended implications. At least ones that do not need misdirection to distract from sleight of hand.
Not quite. Tricks are intended to make you believe something that is not true; in OP’s situation, the other people in the meeting believe that OP is sitting in the location that the background picture is taken from. They can’t actually see the background, however; instead they can see the photo of the background. Their assumption is correct, but the fact that they’re looking at a fake background means it COULD be false.
The room is misrepresented. If it’s dirty, a clean image isn’t true.
Just because something could be false does not magically make it true not-knowledge.
And if the screenshot was taken just before the meeting?
Then it’s true that happens to also be unconfirmed knowledge. Until it is confirmed, it is never actually knowledge, which makes the whole premise stupid.
It is absolutely in no way what so ever unique to have something that is presented as knowledge that happens to be false in reality.
Otherwise EVERY food advertisement would count in the same boat: “true”, but not accurately true.
and we all know that shit is false as fuck.
Of course it’s not unusual to have something presented as knowledge that is false. That’s just lying.
The distinction here is that the conclusion is true, but it is based off of inaccurate information. The conclusion that advertisements are trying to steer you towards is false.
But the cited example is not the same as advertisement. At all. Period. What so ever.
Advertisement is based on false presentation in addition to an outright lie in the reality of the situation at hand.
What is literally pictured in modern advertisement is often not even edible product. It’s literally, within the picture, glue or other non-edible lies.
So by bringing advertisement into this, you’re actually bringing in something even less honest than what I’m talking about…
My dude, I am not the one who brought advertisement into it.
I can’t believe that this is how I find the most pedagogical counterexample I’ve ever seen to true justified belief being knowledge hahaha
Yea! Wasn’t the classic example some convoluted story of people moving coins around pockets or something ?
the one I’ve heard is, a farmer can’t see his cow anywhere. his neighbor comes to visit, and on the way she walks past the farmer’s field and sees the cow behind (from the house’s perspective) a small patch of trees and brush. she doesn’t notice that on the other side of the trees (toward the house) there is a bedsheet caught in the low branches that was blown off of someone’s clothesline and fell in mud along the way. when she reaches the house the farmer asks if she’s seen the cow, she says yes, it’s over by the trees. the farmer looks out and sees the sheet in the distance, mistakes it for the cow, which he has not actually seen, and thus believes the neighbor. so the cow is by the trees, he believes the cow is by the trees, and he has good reason to believe, and yet based on the evidence actually available to him, he should not be certain
The sheet is not the only thing that has been muddied in this questionable example. The cow is NOT where he thinks it is and therefore he does NOT have knowledge of it being there. It’s near where he thinks it is but that distinction makes all the difference in the world.
Also there’s a whole slew of problems arising from the way our cognition interprets sensory information. For instance, our eyes enable us to see light in various colors and intensities but they arguably don’t see objects (or subjects). In that sense we cannot hold JTB about cows, anyway, because even as a farmer we cannot be sure we’ve ever seen one.
(Never mind the next problem, which is that even our sensory facilities might be corrupted by color blindness, myopia, etc…)
I bet this exact rebuttal appears in the southern journal of philosophy ca. 1967
