There is a deep connection between a person’s belief and the evidence that supports it

16 Oct 2025

This paper presents a way to define and test whether someone is justified in holding a belief, using an example from contemporary epistemology known as Gettier’s Case I. On the theoretical side, it suggests that, contrary to common interpretations, the person in this example might not actually be justified in their belief. The key idea is that a person’s belief and the evidence that they have for that belief are deeply connected. In other words, we cannot properly evaluate the belief on its own; we must also consider the evidence supporting it. On the more practical side, it provides step-by-step instructions, like a computer program, to help determine whether a person’s belief is justified or not.

This research is significant because it challenges long-standing assumptions about what it means for an epistemic agent to be justified in believing a particular proposition, offering a fresh perspective on a classic problem in contemporary epistemology. By providing a clear definition of epistemic justification and a pseudocode algorithm, the paper bridges the gap between abstract philosophical concepts and concrete methods for analysis. The application of this framework to Gettier’s Case I highlights potential flaws in traditional interpretations, emphasizing the inseparability of a belief and its evidential basis. This approach not only deepens our understanding of epistemic justification but also opens the door to more rigorous evaluations of knowledge claims in both philosophy and related fields, such as artificial intelligence and cognitive science.

Author: John Ian K. Boongaling (Department of Philosophy, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman)

Read the full paper: https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/323129

There is a deep connection between a person’s belief and the evidence that supports it

This paper presents a way to define and test whether someone is justified in holding a belief, using an example from contemporary epistemology known as Gettier’s Case I. On the theoretical side, it suggests that, contrary to common interpretations, the person in this example might not actually be justified in their belief. The key idea is that a person’s belief and the evidence that they have for that belief are deeply connected. In other words, we cannot properly evaluate the belief on its own; we must also consider the evidence supporting it. On the more practical side, it provides step-by-step instructions, like a computer program, to help determine whether a person’s belief is justified or not.

This research is significant because it challenges long-standing assumptions about what it means for an epistemic agent to be justified in believing a particular proposition, offering a fresh perspective on a classic problem in contemporary epistemology. By providing a clear definition of epistemic justification and a pseudocode algorithm, the paper bridges the gap between abstract philosophical concepts and concrete methods for analysis. The application of this framework to Gettier’s Case I highlights potential flaws in traditional interpretations, emphasizing the inseparability of a belief and its evidential basis. This approach not only deepens our understanding of epistemic justification but also opens the door to more rigorous evaluations of knowledge claims in both philosophy and related fields, such as artificial intelligence and cognitive science.

Author: John Ian K. Boongaling (Department of Philosophy, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman)

Read the full paper: https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/323129