Tripartite theory attempts to define what knowledge is. The theory states that if we believe something, have a justification for believing it, and it is true, then our belief is knowledge. For example, John believes that he knows the way to the library: he has followed the sign to the library, and he is indeed heading in the correct direction. Therefore, states tripartite theory, John has knowledge of the way to the library.

This seems straightforward and logical, but does it really describe the full extent of what knowledge is? Why even attempt to define what knowledge is?

The reasons behind attempts to define what knowledge is lie in responding to sceptical arguments. Sceptics can doubt knowledge, or the sources of knowledge, so in order to respond to the sceptics it is useful to define what is being dealt with.

The model of Plato's Ladder aptly describes the logic behind the theory. At the bottom of the ladder we have only ignorance, and at the top we have knowledge. Any given belief must climb the ladder, each step brining it closer to knowledge. The first rung is an unjustified belief; this is simply dogma. The next rung takes us to a justified belief, but this may still be true or false and so cannot be knowledge. The next rung is an unjustified true belief. The truth has been stumbled upon, but there is no reason why. The final rung is that of a justified true belief. The believer knows what they believe to be true, and they have justification for believing this. Thus, they have achieved knowledge.

However, Gettier pointed out that a justified true belief might not be knowledge. He suggested examples of justified true beliefs that were not knowledge. Since then many other examples have been thought up and they are known as Gettier Counter Examples. For example, I have a friend who is an actor, and he has a fiancé. Walking past a church one day I see him emerge from the church with a bride, and many guests throwing confetti over them. I believe that he has got married without inviting me, my justification being the scene in front of me. This is also true; he has got married without inviting me. However unbeknownst to me he got married in secret the previous weekend, and the scene in front of me is the set for a film he is making. So although I am justified and correct in believing that he has got married without inviting me, Gettier would argue, I cannot be said at that moment to have knowledge of that as my assumption as to what I am seeing is incorrect.

This is the crux of Gettier counter examples, each example has a problem involving the justification. A justification requires an assumption (in the example above that I was seeing a genuine wedding), the assumptions in Gettier counter examples are false, but through chance or invalid reasoning support a true belief.

This leads to the criticism that Gettier counter examples are rare and contrived, but nonetheless attempts have been made to modify the Tripartite theory in light of Gettier's work.

Lehrer proposed that there must be no false steps in the reasoning of the individual from the assumption to justification to belief (for example, if I saw my friends wedding and assumed him to be 34 years old, I might be correct, but my reasoning does not follow from my experience at that instant). There is another proposal that the justification(s) must not be false in order to support a true belief that is knowledge (therefore my belief that my friend had got married would be true, but not justified by this doctrine as my assumption that I was seeing a real wedding was false).

The 'common sense' response to Gettier is simply that if you have a belief that is true and you can justify it, even if the justification is flawed, you still end up with the same truthful conclusion, and so the ultimate belief and thus the ultimate knowledge remains unchanged.

Therefore, in claiming that knowledge is a justified and true belief, the tripartite theory of knowledge provides an adequate description of knowledge. In certain circumstances the rigour of the theory can be challenged, but in the final analysis the knowledge claimed remains the same.

Tutor: Oliver McAdoo MA

WWW www.arrod.co.uk