The Outdated Library Notice
The school library's notice board carries a printed card: 'Library closes at 5.00 p.m.' On Monday, Arjun reads it and forms the belief that the library closes at 5.00 p.m. On Wednesday he arrives at 4.40, finds the door locked, and is told the library has closed at 5.00 for years. Unknown to Arjun, the card was printed two years ago, when the library actually closed at 6.00; the current 5.00 closing is due to a new timetable introduced last month. Arjun's belief is true, he has evidence (the official-looking card), and he has no reason to doubt it. In class, Meera says, 'True plus justified equals knowledge.' Farhan says, 'This is a Gettier-style case; it shows JTB is not sufficient.' The teacher asks for a careful verdict, not a label.
1. Test Arjun's belief against the JTB conditions. Is it knowledge? Explain the role of epistemic luck in your verdict.
Read the worked answer
Arjun believes that the library closes at 5; the belief is true; and he has justification (an official-looking notice, no defeaters). So all three JTB conditions are met. But the truth is not appropriately connected to the justification: the card was accurate for a 6 p.m. closing two years ago and is now outdated; the present 5 p.m. closing has a different cause. Arjun is right by accident. This is a Gettier-style case: JTB is not sufficient for knowledge if justification is fallible and the truth is a matter of luck. The case does not show that knowledge is impossible, nor that justification is irrelevant. It shows that a fallible justification can be defeated by luck. A reliabilist would deny knowledge because the process - trusting an undated notice - is not reliable in this instance; a virtue epistemologist would say Arjun gets no credit for the truth; a coherentist might say the belief coheres with his background beliefs but coherence is not truth-conducive here. The strongest conclusion is that JTB needs a fourth condition, such as no false lemmas or no defeaters, or that justification must be truth-conducive.
2. Does the case refute the claim 'knowledge implies true belief' or the claim 'true justified belief is sufficient for knowledge'? Distinguish these two claims.
Read the worked answer
The case leaves 'knowledge implies true belief' untouched: if Arjun did not believe the proposition, or if the proposition were false, he would not know it. What the case attacks is the sufficiency claim: true belief plus justification is not enough for knowledge. A counterexample to sufficiency must satisfy all proposed conditions and still fail to be knowledge; Arjun's case does that if we accept fallible justification. But the case does not refute every possible analysis of knowledge. A defeasibility theorist will say Arjun's justification is defeated by the existence of the outdated card, even though he does not know it is outdated. A reliabilist will say the belief-forming process is unreliable. A virtue epistemologist will say the truth does not arise from Arjun's cognitive agency. Each response preserves JTB in a modified form rather than abandoning the project of analysing knowledge.
3. What is the source of Arjun's justification, and how would a rationalist and an empiricist differ in assessing it?
Read the worked answer
The justification is empirical: testimony and perception of a printed notice. A rationalist in Descartes' sense would demand more than probable sensory evidence; he would seek a clear and distinct perception that cannot be doubted. Arjun's belief is defeasible - a date on the card, a call to the office, or a check of the timetable would defeat it. Empiricists such as Locke or Hume would accept testimony and perception as the normal source of such beliefs, while insisting that justification is probabilistic and corrigible. So the rationalist–empiricist difference is not about whether Arjun has evidence, but about what kind of evidence can yield knowledge: indubitable rational insight versus fallible empirical support.