Your Brain is Lying to You: 🤯 The ‘Gettier Problem’ & Why You Know Less Than You Think

Have you ever been absolutely, 100% certain about something, only to find out you were right for the completely wrong reason? Maybe you “knew” your friend was late because of traffic, but they were actually late because they overslept, and just happened to hit the traffic you predicted. For centuries, philosophers believed that knowledge was simple: a belief that was both justified and true. You have a good reason to believe something, and that something is factually correct. Simple, right? But in 1963, a short, three-page paper by a philosopher named Edmund Gettier blew this definition to pieces. This article will explore the ‘Gettier Problem,’ a mind-bending puzzle that reveals the shaky foundations of our own certainty and proves why you probably know a lot less than you think.

What does it mean to “know” something?

Before we dive into the deep end, let’s start with the basics. For thousands of years, going all the way back to Plato, the standard definition of knowledge was what philosophers call the “Justified True Belief” (JTB) model. It sounds complex, but it’s actually quite intuitive. According to this traditional view, for you to “know” something, three conditions must be met:

• Belief: First, you must actually believe it. You can’t know that Paris is the capital of France if you don’t believe it’s true.
• Truth: Second, your belief has to be objectively true. If you believe the capital of France is Lyon, you don’t know it, you’re just mistaken.
• Justification: Third, you must have a good reason or justification for your belief. You might believe Paris is the capital because you learned it in school, read it in a book, or looked it up on a map. You can’t just guess it correctly.

This JTB framework seems pretty solid. It covers all the bases. It separates knowledge from lucky guesses (which lack justification) and from falsehoods (which aren’t true). For a very long time, this was the accepted gold standard for knowledge. It’s logical, it makes sense, and it aligns with our everyday experience. That is, until a philosopher came along and posed a few simple scenarios that broke the whole thing wide open.

Enter Gettier: The wrench in the works

In 1963, Edmund Gettier published his bombshell paper, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”. In it, he presented thought experiments, now known as “Gettier cases,” that satisfied all three conditions of the JTB model but which we would intuitively agree are not real knowledge. His argument was that you can have a justified, true belief that is only true because of dumb luck.

Let’s look at a modern, simplified version of a Gettier problem:

Imagine you see a sheep in a field. From the road, you see a fluffy, white, sheep-shaped object. You form the belief, “There is a sheep in that field.”

• Is it a belief? Yes, you believe it.
• Do you have justification? Yes, your eyes are providing you with what looks like solid evidence of a sheep.

Now for the twist. What you’re actually looking at is a big, fluffy sheepdog, perfectly positioned to look just like a sheep from your angle. But, hidden behind a small hill in the same field, completely out of your sight, there is also a real sheep. So, is your belief “There is a sheep in that field” true? Yes, it is! But do you actually know it? Almost everyone would say no. Your belief is true by sheer coincidence. Your justification (seeing the dog) has nothing to do with why the statement is true (the hidden sheep). You were right for the wrong reason.

Gettier cases are hiding in plain sight

This might seem like a niche philosophical game, but Gettier-style problems pop up constantly in our information-saturated world. They are the gremlins in the machinery of our minds, making us feel certain when we should be skeptical.

Think about the digital age. You read a headline on a social media site from what appears to be a legitimate news source: “Famous CEO Resigns in Scandal.” You form a justified belief. Ten minutes later, you find out that the news site’s account was hacked and posted a fake story. However, at that exact moment, the CEO, for entirely unrelated health reasons, actually does resign. Your belief was true and you thought it was justified, but the justification was completely false. You didn’t know; you just got lucky.

This happens in our social lives, too. You see your coworker storm out of the boss’s office with a red face. You form the justified belief, “My coworker is angry about something that happened in that meeting.” In reality, they are red-faced because they ran up the stairs. But, as it happens, they are also secretly furious about the meeting. Your belief is true and seems justified, but your evidence is pointing to the wrong cause. This is how office gossip and misunderstandings thrive—on beliefs that are accidentally true.

Navigating a Gettier world

So if our brains can be so easily tricked and our “knowledge” is sometimes just lucky guesswork, what can we do? The answer isn’t to become a radical skeptic who believes nothing. The lesson from the Gettier problem is the vital importance of intellectual humility.

It teaches us to hold our beliefs a little less tightly and to constantly interrogate our justifications. Instead of just asking “Is this true?”, we should ask, “Why do I believe this is true? Is my justification solid? Could I be right for the wrong reason?”

Here are some practical steps:

• Diversify your justification: Don’t rely on a single piece of evidence. If you believe something, look for multiple, independent sources of justification. One source might be a lucky accident; it’s much less likely that three or four are.
• Question your assumptions: Actively look for evidence that might disprove your belief. This practice, known as falsification, is a cornerstone of scientific thinking and a powerful antidote to confirmation bias.
• Embrace uncertainty: It’s okay to say “I’m not sure” or “I believe this, but my evidence is a bit thin.” True confidence doesn’t come from being certain; it comes from understanding the limits of your own knowledge.

By doing this, you’re not abandoning the pursuit of knowledge. You are strengthening it by building it on a foundation of high-quality, robust justification, rather than the shifting sands of coincidence and luck.

In the end, the Gettier problem isn’t just a puzzle for philosophers in ivory towers; it’s a practical lesson for everyday life. We started with the classic idea that knowledge is a Justified True Belief, a definition that feels strong and intuitive. Then, Gettier showed us its fatal flaw: luck can make a belief true even when our justification is completely off-base, meaning we don’t really “know” at all. This isn’t a rare occurrence; our modern world is full of these informational traps, from viral misinformation to simple social misjudgments. The key takeaway is not despair, but a call for greater intellectual humility. By questioning our reasons, seeking better evidence, and accepting a degree of uncertainty, we can move beyond being accidentally right and closer to genuine understanding.

Image by: Pixabay
https://www.pexels.com/@pixabay