Gettier Problem - Not A Problem

This is about the Gettier problem and how it's not actually a problem, but a fallacy of induction.

Case 1. The case’s protagonist is Smith.

Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job.

Smith has been told by the company president that Jones will get the job.

Smith has evidence of there being ten coins in Jones’s pocket. (He had counted them himself — an odd but imaginable circumstance.)

Smith combines the testimonial evidence of the company president and the knowledge of Jones having ten coins, and proceeds to infer that the one that will get the job has ten coins in their pocket.

(As the present article proceeds, we will refer to this belief several times more. For convenience, therefore, let us call it belief b.)

Notice that Smith is not thereby guessing. On the contrary; his belief b enjoys a reasonable amount of justificatory support. There is the company president’s testimony; there is Smith’s observation of the coins in Jones’s pocket; and there is Smith’s proceeding to infer belief b carefully and sensibly from that other evidence. Belief b is thereby justified — supported by evidence which is reasonable. As it happens, belief b is true — although not in the way in which Smith was expecting it to be true. For it is Smith who will get the job, and Smith himself has ten coins in his pocket. These two facts combine to make his belief b true. Nevertheless, neither of those facts is something that, on its own, was known by Smith. Is his belief b therefore not knowledge? In other words, does Smith fail to know that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket? Surely so (thought Gettier).

And here is the Gettier problem fixed.

It is not mentioned if the president makes the final decision in this matter.

Smith has been told by the president Jones will get the job.

Smith knows Jones has ten coins.

Smith does not know how many coins he has.

Smith infers that "whoever will get the job has ten coins in their pocket". This is incompletely as Smith negates the possibility he also may have ten coins in his pocket.

Rephrasing this properly so the coins are meaningless, which they are, Smith is attempting to infer: Jones will get the job and he will not. This is a fallacy of induction due to the fact that a single claim by a single individual(the president) is not enough to make a conclusion.

The Gettier problem asserts Smith "enjoys a reasonable amount of justificatory support." due to "the company president’s testimony", therefore Smith does "truly believe" Jones will get the job.

What is true: Smith believes the president.

As it turns out, Smith gets the job and not Jones.

The Gettier problem reveals how a belief that is both justified and rational, can be wrong.