Speaking of philosophy and causation, what's everyone's take on the Gettier problem?

False. Rain is caused by clouds.

You are looking at this too narrow minded. What leads you to believe that rain is caused by clouds?

Speaking of philosophy and causation, what's everyone's take on the Gettier problem?

That is nifty. Naively, I would assume that justified true belief should have different behaviors with operations (compared to actual truth); kinda like nulability percolating through code.

You are looking at this too narrow minded. What leads you to believe that rain is caused by clouds?

Scientific peer reviewed studies proving so.

edit:
interestingly, this is from a link posted earlier by swiftcoder on skepticism:

[font="verdana"][size="-1"]There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.[/quote][/font]

[quote name='slayemin' timestamp='1330097696' post='4916228']
False. Rain is caused by clouds.

You are looking at this too narrow minded. What leads you to believe that rain is caused by clouds?
[/quote]
I'm from Seattle. I can tell you from numerous personal experiences that rain is indeed caused by clouds. I suppose you could find a meterologist to verify that for you if you're confused. I challenge you to show me a scenario where it is raining (in the same sense of the term) without clouds being the cause.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330098584' post='4916231']
You are looking at this too narrow minded. What leads you to believe that rain is caused by clouds?

Scientific peer reviewed studies proving so.
[/quote]

I'm not sure if you see where I'm going but I can keep asking you "What leads you to believe X?" Eventually it will lead to this.

I'm not sure if you see where I'm going but I can keep asking you "What leads you to believe X?" Eventually it will lead to this.

Which is called solipsism, and we already established (about a page ago) that it wasn't a productive means of inquiry.

I'm not sure if you see where I'm going but I can keep asking you "What leads you to believe X?" Eventually it will lead to this.

is just a figment of your imagination," skews more legitimate advances in philosophical discussions among friends. I know I become instantly turned off of any philosophical discussion that skews in that direction. It seems like it heads that way too often and it really loses the focus of what's actually interesting about the discussion.

It's important to observe that it's possible that nothing exists except for oneself, but it makes the pursuit of knowledge shallow when you make that the only possibility.

And I'm out...

Speaking of philosophy and causation, what's everyone's take on the Gettier problem?

It's interesting to think about. I think Platos definition of knowledge is incomplete and Gettier found a way to exploit it. I suppose the best solution is to fix the "true justified belief" by adding another requirement which invalidates the Gettier problem. The best I can come up with is "...and stands the test of time", where the knowledge is tested by yourself or others.
Historically, scientific theories have been changed or discarded. If you used the Ptolemaic model for the universe and had no knowledge of other models, could you say that you have knowledge about the stars and planets? If you discovered and used a heliocentric model for the universe and then looked back at the knowledge you acquired using the Ptolemaic model, you'd say that the knowledge you had was mistaken and no longer counted as knowledge. Yet, going further foward in time and using another theory, you'd say that the heliocentric guy also was mistaken and had no knowledge. Who knows if the knowledge we have today will count as knowledge centuries from now? Can we ever say that we truly have knowledge (in the scientific sense) if we only use platos 'true justified belief' as its requirement? If we add the '...and stands the test of time' requirement, we can hold off on calling something knowledge until a reasonable amount of time has passed, proportionate to the size of the claim. Do neutrinos go faster than the speed of light? If we said "yes" based off of the results of initial experiments, we'd be justified and it would seem to be true, but whether that fact is actually true or not is something that will have to withstand the test of time. The right step is to wait and see before claiming knowledge. Arguably, someone could claim that we'd never know exactly how long we need to wait for something to count as knowledge, so there could be *something* which would require an infinite amount of time to test and thus we'd never have knowledge when we would in the other circumstance (example, big bang theory?).

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330099796' post='4916236']
I'm not sure if you see where I'm going but I can keep asking you "What leads you to believe X?" Eventually it will lead to this.

Which is called solipsism, and we already established (about a page ago) that it wasn't a productive means of inquiry.
[/quote]

My point is that EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE! Facts are correlations to other fact which are correlations to other facts which are correlations to NOTHING!

My original theory correlates to many preexisting facts and therefore is very likely to be fact. However, it is still theory simply because there are not enough correlations and the correlations which do exist are subject to possible unforeseen factors.