I don't get it. I read case I, and I don't see how Jones is 'justified' in believing (e), since his belief is based on a false premise derived from hearsay. But maybe I'm missing some technicality in the meaning of 'justified.'
In any case, "justified true belief" seems like a flimsy basis for epistemology, since we have no independent oracle to ask whether our beliefs are true. So this definition doesn't seem to do anything to help us separate knowledge from non-knowledge.
In any case, "justified true belief" seems like a flimsy basis for epistemology, since we have no independent oracle to ask whether our beliefs are true. So this definition doesn't seem to do anything to help us separate knowledge from non-knowledge.