This paper will investigate two methods of understanding how humans acquire knowledge: Justified True Belief (JTB), and Reliabilism. Initially, I will define and illustrate both concepts. Afterwards, I will determine the differences and similarities between the two. This will allow me to assess which one is more coherent. Demonstrating the preceding tasks concludes that Reliabilism is the more logically consistent method of forming knowledge.
JTB theory states that for any individual S and any proposition p, S knows that p if and only if: S believes that p, p is true, and S is justified in believing p1. This method has three distinctions. First, the individual must believe the proposition. The proposition must be true. Lastly, the individual is justified in believing the proposition. The first two premises are clear; however, justification needs further explanation. The individual must possess a sufficient reason to believing p, or else people will be forming true observations but by mere coincidence. To demonstrate this I'll provide an example that hypothetically will take place in the future: I believe I will get a good grade on this paper, and indeed I got a good grade on this paper. However, believing I will get a good grade alone does not justify knowing that I will get a good grade. Rather, if I also justify believing I will get a good grade, because of this amazing example, then that gives me grounds for indeed knowing I will get a good grade.
Contrastingly, Reliabilism possess slightly different requirements for knowledge. It states that S knows that p if and only if: S believes that p, p is true, and in the circumstance that S occupies, if S believes that p, then p must be true2. The first two premises are the same as the JTB theory; however the third condition is substantially different. The third condition is broken down as follows:.
(i) In the circumstance that S occupies, S wouldn't believe that p unless p were true.
