I completely agree the sentence is a mess, Ann. Here it is:
"Starmans & Friedman (2009) report that, pace professional philosophical intuition, women are far more likely than men to deny the so-called Gettier intuition, and attribute knowledge to a putative knower in the particular Gettier vignettes tested."
The "so-called Gettier intuition" is that these cases are *not* really knowledge, even though they are justified, true, and believed, right? So the sentence above says:
"...pace professional intuition, women are far more likely to deny the intuition that these cases are not knowledge, and attribute knowledge to the putative knower...", yes?
This reading is confirmed by what the author says further down:
"imagine being a young female philosophy student, presented with the scenario of a famous thought experiment like Gettier, and then asked a question designed to reveal a particular philosophical intuition. Now imagine that your intuition does not agree with not only the males in the class, but also with the male philosophical majority."
Perhaps, the article reveals (with the problem sentence above), that male philosophers are more likely to make convoluted sentences that take some unravelling when they could easily say the same thing in a straightforward manner and only the most stubborn of women are willing to waste their time unravelling it :) lol!!
Still, how to reason that a Gettier case could be seen as actual knowledge remains unsolved...
Perhaps some intuit that the "justification" in Gettier cases is not legit justification at all, so that these are *not* cases of justified true belief. I could probably sign on to that and come up with some reasoning in support. But not that these are cases of true knowledge (and that is what the messy sentence appears to say after the "and").
GP
|