Two Wells, Two Fever Cases and a Lost Sample
In a tribal block of Gadchiroli, an ASHA worker serves twelve hamlets. Two wells supply drinking water: the north well, 300 metres from a cremation ground, and the south well. In July, two children from the north hamlet fell ill with fever within a week. The ASHA worker now tells all twelve hamlets that the north well is unsafe, and most families have shifted to the south well, where the tanker queue has grown to two hours. Her evidence is the two fever cases and an elder's statement that the north well is 'unlucky'. The laboratory sample from the north well was lost in transit; the south well was last tested in 2019 and passed. A nurse says she once saw a tanker fill from the north well and no one fell ill. The block medical officer asks for a written note before the monsoon review.
1. Does the ASHA worker know that the north well is unsafe? Analyse the claim using the justified-true-belief account and the Gettier problem.
Read the worked answer
Under the standard account, S knows that p only if p is true, S believes p, and S is justified in believing p. Take each condition.
Belief: yes, she believes it and acts on it.
Truth: undetermined. The sample was lost, so we cannot say whether the well is contaminated. Suppose it is - the belief is then true, but only by luck of the world's arrangement.
Justification: weak. Two fever cases in one week in one hamlet is a hasty generalisation: fever has many causes, and we are not told that the two children drank only from that well or that others who drank did not fall ill. The elder's 'unlucky' is not evidence about water. The cremation-ground detail is a contaminating image, not a mechanism - distance alone says nothing without knowing the water table and the well's lining.
Gettier point: even if the well is in fact contaminated, her route to the belief is unreliable - she would have said the same about any well near a burial ground with two fever cases. So this is not knowledge, and if the belief is true it is true coincidentally. That is exactly the gap the Gettier cases expose: justified-and-true is not sufficient when the justification does not connect to the truth-maker.
Verdict: she holds a prudent suspicion, not knowledge. Acting on suspicion may be justified as a precaution; asserting it as fact to twelve hamlets is not.
2. Rank the available sources of belief in order of reliability and explain which is most defeasible.
Read the worked answer
1. Direct perception and measurement (currently absent). A tested water sample, turbidity, a bacteriological report - the only source that can settle the question. Its absence is the central gap.
2. The nurse's testimony. She reports a particular observed event: a tanker filled from the north well and no one fell ill. This is limited (one occasion, small numbers) and does not prove safety, but it is specific, checkable and about the same question.
3. The ASHA worker's inference from two cases. Inference is legitimate, but this one is an unchecked generalisation from a tiny, unselected sample, with no attempt to look for cases among south-well users.
4. The elder's testimony. A judgement of 'luck' is not about water quality at all; it carries social authority, not evidential weight.
5. The 2019 south-well report. It bears on a different well and is stale; using it to infer that the south well is currently safe is an appeal to outdated authority.
Most defeasible: the 2019 report, because a single new test would overturn it. The nurse's testimony is also defeasible but would need a different kind of counter-evidence - showing the tanker was filled elsewhere, or that illness followed. The ASHA worker's inference is defeated by simply noticing the missing comparison group.
3. What should the ASHA worker do, and what intellectual vice is she displaying? Design the test that would settle the matter.
Read the worked answer
The vice: hasty generalisation, paired with a failure of intellectual humility - she announces a conclusion to twelve hamlets at a confidence the evidence cannot carry. There is also a confirmation bias at work: the cremation ground and the elder's remark make contamination salient, so the two fever cases are read as confirmation and the nurse's counter-case is discounted. Note that her motive is protective, which makes the vice easier to miss; good intentions do not upgrade weak evidence.
What she should do: state the claim as a precaution, not a finding ('we do not yet know; until we do, boil water'), and say what would change her mind. She should also record the south-well queue as a real cost of the advice - a two-hour queue has its own health effects, and shifting everyone to one source concentrates risk.
The test:
- Collect fresh samples from both wells, labelled and sealed, with a signed chain-of-custody slip so a second loss is traceable.
- Test for faecal coliform and turbidity, not merely 'clean-looking' water.
- Survey both hamlets for diarrhoea and fever over the same four weeks, so the two cases are compared with a base rate.
- Inspect the north well's lining, apron and distance to the water table, since proximity to a cremation ground matters only through drainage.
- Repeat sampling after the monsoon.
The result - positive or negative - should be announced to all twelve hamlets with the same clarity as the original warning.