A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 1Harlington School · Philosophy · Epistemology

The definition of knowledge

Believed, true, good reasons — and still right by luck. Four repairs try to close the hole: two fix the reasons, two fix how the belief is made.

The
big
question

What must be true of a belief before it counts as knowledge — and can any definition survive Gettier?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The repair line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

SMALLEST change · keep 'good reasons'BIGGEST change · rebuild around the knower

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

Epistemology is one question in three sizes: what knowledge IS (this unit), where it COMES FROM (seeing, reasoning), and how FAR it reaches (the limits of knowledge).

◀ Refer back · Induction — what is a philosophical argument?
What makes an argument valid, and what makes it sound?

Gettier's paper IS an argument: one case against a definition. This unit asks whether the argument works — and what to do if it does.

Retrieve: Write the tripartite view as one 'if and only if' sentence. Then mark which half Gettier attacks.
The big idea

Going from left to right, each repair gives up more of the old picture: first that three boxes are enough, then that reasons can be less than certain, then reasons themselves, then the focus on the belief rather than the person. In the essay you decide how much of the old picture is worth keeping.

Look ahead · Perception as a source of knowledge ▶
What are the immediate objects of perception?

Every repair today assumes that LOOKING gives you good reasons. The next unit asks whether it does — fake-barn county is already a case about looking.

Prime: Note one case from today where the belief came from looking. The next unit asks what you were looking AT.
01

The lessons in this unit

5 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track A · Autumn 1 · weeks 1–4. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 1

The map: what is knowledge?

Types of knowledge, the tripartite view, and why every definition in the unit is a reply to Gettier.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 1–2

Types of knowledge and the tripartite view

Ability, acquaintance and propositional knowledge; individually necessary and jointly sufficient; J, T and B.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 2

Gettier: two kinds of failure

The two original cases and the fake-barn county; are the conditions necessary, and are they sufficient?

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 3

No false lemmas and infallibilism

Adding a fourth condition; strengthening the third; what each blocks and what each costs.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 5 · week 4

Reliabilism and virtue epistemology

Replacing justification with a reliable process, then with intellectual virtue; the ladder.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four repairs, side by side

Why is 'justified true belief' not the end of the story? But Gettier (1963) denies one thing: that the three together are ENOUGH. He tells stories where all three are there — and the person is right only by luck. A lucky true belief is not knowledge. So the definition has a hole in it. This lesson is the map of the whole unit. Four repairs try to close the hole. Two make the REASONS stricter: no false steps, or be certain. Two change how the belief is MADE: a reliable process, or skill. Each repair gets a lesson of its own.

Add a condition

No false lemmas

Knowledge is a true belief with good reasons that does not go through a false step.
1A 'lemma' is a step in your thinking. If any step is false, the belief is not knowledge — even if it comes out true.
2In the job case the false step is 'he will get the job'. In the borrowed-car case it is 'that car is still hers'.
3The repair keeps everything the tripartite view got right and throws out the two cases Gettier actually wrote.
4You still do not need to be certain. Your reasons can be less than perfect — so long as they pass through no false step.
Strength The smallest possible change. It keeps the old definition and adds one rule. And the rule names exactly what went wrong in Gettier's cases: the thinking went through a falsehood.
Weakness Fake-barn county has no step in it. You just look and see. No false belief, no false assumption — and the belief is still lucky. So this fix catches the thinking cases and misses the looking cases.
Replace J

Reliabilism

Knowledge is a true belief made by a reliable process — one that usually gets the truth.
1A process is reliable if it gets the truth most of the time: normal sight, good memory, careful sums, a trustworthy source.
2You do not have to be able to give reasons. So a dog, a baby, or a gifted guesser can know things — which the tripartite view could not allow.
3The job case: 'thinking from a false belief' is not reliable. The thermometer: 'reading a broken instrument' is not reliable. Both are out.
4'Good reasons' was always vague. 'Reliable' can be measured: how often does the process get it right?
Strength It explains how babies and animals can know without giving reasons. It matches how we really judge: 'is the source trustworthy?' And it swaps the vague word 'reasons' for something we can count.
Weakness Fake-barn county: eyesight is reliable, the belief is true, and it is still luck. And it says nothing about YOUR point of view — a person with a reliable gift they know nothing about would 'know' things they have no reason to believe.
Rebuild around the knower

Virtue epistemology

Knowledge is an apt belief: true BECAUSE it was formed with skill.
1Accurate: the belief is true. Adroit: it came from an intellectual skill — careful looking, good reasoning, a sound memory.
2Apt: the belief is true BECAUSE of the skill. That 'because' is the thing every Gettier case lacks.
3In the job case the belief was accurate and even adroit, but not apt: it was true by luck, not because of the thinking.
4The knower, not just the belief, is at the centre. Knowing is something you achieve — like a shot that hits because of the archer's skill.
Strength The 'because' names exactly what Gettier cases lack, without asking for certainty. It explains why knowing is to your credit. And it handles thinking cases and instrument cases alike.
Weakness Fake-barn county splits even its friends: the skill would have misfired on any other barn, so is the belief apt? Sosa's answer — apt, but not 'reflectively' apt — adds a layer some find made up to order.
Strengthen J

Infallibilism

Knowledge needs reasons so strong that the belief cannot be wrong.
1If you know something, you cannot be wrong about it. Knowing means being certain — not feeling certain, but having no room for doubt.
2Gettier cases fail because in every one the reasons left room for error. So they were never knowledge to begin with.
3Only beliefs that cannot possibly be false count: 'I exist', 'I am in pain', and truths of maths and logic.
4Almost everything we normally say we know is demoted — from knowledge to well-founded opinion.
Strength It ends every Gettier case at a stroke, because none of them involves certainty. And it matches a feeling we all have: if you KNOW it, you cannot be wrong about it.
Weakness It sets the bar so high that we know almost nothing — not that we have hands, not that the sun will rise. A definition that makes nearly every ordinary 'I know' false has stopped describing the word we use.
04

Six cases — and still not knowledge?

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the job and the coins next to the thermometer. Both are believed, true, with good reasons. Say what is DIFFERENT: a false step in one, a broken thing in the other. Which fix fits which?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the thermometer. Reliabilism says 'reading a broken thermometer' is not reliable. But 'reading that thermometer' had been reliable for years. Which description counts — and who decides?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Infallibilism blocks every Gettier case. Grant that. Now say what it costs — and whether a definition that costs that much is still about the word 'know' we actually use.
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Run the six cases. In each one, say where the reasons and the truth come apart. Say the rule you have found. Then find the case that is hardest to fit.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by a 'necessary condition'?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A short example earns the third mark.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline the tripartite view of knowledge.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. Name all three conditions
  2. Say 'individually necessary and jointly sufficient'
  3. Give the biconditional.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain one Gettier-style objection to the tripartite view.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. State the case
  2. Show all three conditions are met
  3. Show why it is not knowledge
  4. Name the role of luck.
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain reliabilism and one issue with it.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. Define R+T+B
  2. Explain what 'reliable' means
  3. The fake-barn issue in full
  4. How a reliabilist might reply.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is knowledge justified true belief?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. JTB stated
  3. Gettier
  4. Two repairs tested against ONE shared case
  5. Judgement that says what the losing view cannot explain.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Try to write a Gettier case that no-false-lemmas, reliabilism AND virtue epistemology all mishandle. If you cannot, which one survived — and why?
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Epistemology Companion runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Epistemology Companion — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Epistemology Companion is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan 'Is knowledge justified true belief?' — thesis, Gettier, two repairs against one case, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is saying the definition and each repair clearly. AO2 is testing them against the SAME case and reaching a judgement. Never judge a repair you have not first explained.
09

Watch

JTB and the Gettier problem — watch for the tripartite view stated, then the two cases that broke it — Philosophy Vibe, 9:09

▶JTB and the Gettier problem · 9 min
Watch for: the tripartite view stated, then the two cases that broke it — Philosophy Vibe, 9:09↗▶Epistemology revision (AQA) · 47 min
Watch for: the whole Epistemology section in one sitting — use the chapters — RPEwithDrT, 47:15↗▶Analyzing Knowledge #1: The Gettier Problem (Wireless Philosophy) · 7 min
Watch for: the exact structure of a Gettier case — where the justification and the truth come apart.↗▶The Meaning of Knowledge — Crash Course Philosophy #7 · 10 min
Watch for: a second set of Gettier-style examples; write one of your own in the booklet.↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say the tripartite view in one 'if and only if' sentence.
  2. Say why the stopped clock ticks all three boxes.
  3. Give one strength AND one weakness of 'no false steps'.

Challenge

Argue: Which repair would you defend in a 25-mark answer — and which ONE case would you use to test all four?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is saying the definition and each repair clearly. AO2 is testing them against the SAME case and reaching a judgement. Never judge a repair you have not first explained.