Hilde, *that* is exactly what I thought might be at issue! Not that some women apparently feel strongly one way or the other about the damn barn! :) One of the things that I think is very interesting about the Gettier examples, however, is that they show (to my mind at least) that knowledge cannot be reduced to a list of isolated conditions (true? check; justified? check; belief? check), but rather that there must be a *relationship* of sorts among the conditions and that having a relationship among the conditions (as opposed to none at all) *changes* the situation... GP --- On Thu, 1/14/10, Hilde Lindemann <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Hilde Lindemann <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Defending the counterintuitive To: [log in to unmask] Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 4:09 PM The thing I always wondered about Gettier-type cases is, Who is the knower who knows what is *really* on the other side of the hill, or the correct make of car, or whatever? Where is this knower situated? Just askin'. Hilde On 1/14/10 3:45 PM, "Emanuela Bianchi" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > As someone continentally trained I confess these "Gettier intuitions" > are new to me but I have been following the thread with fascination. It > seems to me that it requires that in order to have "knowledge" one must > be perfectly aware of all the most recent changes in circumstances (Anne > now drives a Pontiac, silly!), or rather subscribe to something like a > *fantasy* that one *could* be perfectly aware of all the most recent > changes in circumstances in the world, i.e. a patriarchal fantasy of > omniscience, most cogently and brilliantly critiqued (to my mind) from a > feminist perspective by Donna Haraway in "Situated Knowledges: The > Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective" > as the "god-trick." If we all know that that Americophile, Anne, > wouldn't be seen dead in an Unamerican car, don't we know (to all > intents and purposes) that she drives one? ("She drives" is, after all, > a habit, a disposition, not a singular act of driving at time t). Might > Gettier intuiters be further pushed into specifying their knowledge - do > you know if she's driving one RIGHT NOW?? No? Ignoramus!!). Which > leads us to questions of what we might reasonably need to "know" in > order to be said to "know" (the answers to which seem inherently and > necessarily vague and context dependent). This thought would also seem > to have a bearing on the denial of certain sorts of ignorances that > shore up power (precisely ignorances of the functioning of power, of > class, race, gender supremacy etc. so skillfully thematized in the > recent work of Mills, Tuana, etc.) that presumably are also at work in > the construction of the Gettier intuitions. Which is a short way of > saying that it makes perfect sense to me, Kathryn, that those in more > authoritative positions would be more inclined to "intuit" based on a > claim to access to precise and certain knowledge of the most recent and > up-to-date versions of "all that is the case." > > All best and with thanks for a stimulating discussion, > > Emma