In art, genius is forgiven if it isn’t consistent. Hell, it’s probably revered more if it’s inconsistent. It’s fluid. Not so in philosophy. Consistency is king. Without it one becomes lost and strays from the path.

In this episode the Dawdlers (well, Harland, mostly) try their best to explain why a cherished method and paper are inconsistent and are representative of bad philosophy. It’s a famous paper too. Not sure how famous the method is.

What are these things, the paper and the method? Why, Edmund Gettier’s paper “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” and Herman Cappelen’s “method of cases” from “E22: A Farewell to Armchairs”, of course! Here is but another example of philosophers using intuition to form the better part of their reasoning.

Back to class, everyone. Recess is over.

00:07:00 – Gettier claims JTB is Insufficient for Knowledge – Gettier Cases – Smith and Jones and the 10 Coins

00:16:33 – The use of Intuitions by Gettier & its illegitimacy – Broken Clocks & Sustained Objections

00:26:44 – The Gettier Problem – JTB+ – Ryan thinks it’s ugly

00:37:44 – Patches: No False Beliefs – No Defeaters – Causal Connection

00:47:50 – A trip through Fake Barn County to Reliablism – The Lottery Problem – The Tracking Theory & Possible World Semantics

01:05:20 – Aesthetics Returns, Philosophy & Silliness

01:11:15 – Normative Semantics of Epistemic Terms

01:32:00 – You gotta start somewhere