(ii) In the circumstance that S occupies, it is impossible that S believes that p and p is false.3.
The third premise underlines the right to be sure, or the right to be justified, in believing p. Alfred Jules Ayer was one of the first to demonstrate this in his works4. Ayer identifies proper ways of interpreting evidence in certain circumstances for one to entitle themselves with knowledge; however, he is not able to determine exactly what the certain methodology is. Nonetheless, he believes that there is, and must be, a reliable method for claiming knowledge5.
Establishing the two concepts, we may begin analyzing the similarities and differences of the two. For starters, previously mentioned, both theories share the same first two conditions. They both require that S believes p, and that p is true. However, the difference appears in the third condition. The JTB theory requires S to have sufficient justification for believing p, whereas, Reliabilism requires a reliable justification method for S to believe that p. In the earlier good grade example, given for JTB, the Reliabilism theory would refute such method of justification. Instead, Reliabilism would consider my good grade example and the fact that I followed Peter Horban's Writing a Philosophy Paper and James Pryor's Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper as a reliable method of concluding that I knew I would get a good mark. Reliabilism takes into account that I have the best methodology for knowing that I will get a good grade on this paper, which in this case implies I must've executed both Horban's and Pryor's guidelines.
One can also examine the problem of the JTB theory through Edmund L. Gettiers work. Gettier demonstrates how it is possible for S to believe p, p is true, and S having "justification " for believing p, thus having JTB, without actually having knowledge! Gettier draws an interesting scenario for us. This scenario consists of:.
