The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that it is controversial whether knowledge is the same as justified true belief? Source: Zagzebski, Linda (1999). "What Is Knowledge?". In Greco, John; Sosa, Ernest (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 92–116. doi:10.1002/9781405164863.ch3. ISBN 9780631202905. OCLC 39269507. S2CID 158886670. Since believing is something a person does, beliefs have customarily been treated as analogous to acts, so beliefs are good in the sense in which acts are right. Right believing has traditionally been identified with justified believing. So knowledge is justified true belief (JTB ). Sometimes, but not always, this has been understood to mean true belief for the right reasons. For several decades the concept of justification has received an enormous amount of attention since it was assumed that the JTB definition of knowledge was more or less accurate and that the concept of justification was the weak link in the definition. For the most part these discussions proceeded under the assumption that the aim was to arrive at a necessary truth and that the method to be used in doing so was that of truth condition analysis. An important set of counterexamples to the JTB definition of knowledge were proposed by Edmund Gettier (1963) and led to many attempts at refining the definition without questioning either the purpose or the method of definition. ... Gettier's examples are cases in which a belief is true and justified, but it is not an instance of knowledge because it is only by chance that the belief is true.
  • ALT1: ... that philosophers distinguish knowledge of facts from knowledge-how and knowledge by acquaintance? Source: Lilley, Simon; Lightfoot, Geoffrey; Amaral, Paulo (2004). Representing Organization: Knowledge, Management, and the Information Age. Oxford University Press. pp. 162–3. ISBN 978-0-19-877541-6. In its more modern forms epistemology has taken the analysis of meaning and the status of claims to knowledge as its quarry. Consequently, writers such as Bertrand Arthur William Russell (also known as the third Earl Russell, 1872-1970), George Edward Moore (1873-1958), and Ludwig Joseph Johann Wittgenstein (1889-1951) have attempted to delineate three kinds of knowledge: 1. Knowledge that, or 'factual knowledge' ... 2. Knowledge how, or 'practical knowledge' ... 3. Knowledge of people, places, and things, or 'knowledge by acquaintance'
  • Reviewed: (first DYK submission)

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Knowledge; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]