Gettier-style thought experiments have become a standard methodology in modern epistemology. Not only are the Gettier-style thought experiments frequently used as counterexamples to an account of knowledge, they are also commonly taken to be justifiers of an account of knowledge. This paper argues that there is a tension between these two argumentative roles of the Gettier-style thought experiments, which gives rise to a dilemma.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。