The Infona portal uses cookies, i.e. strings of text saved by a browser on the user's device. The portal can access those files and use them to remember the user's data, such as their chosen settings (screen view, interface language, etc.), or their login data. By using the Infona portal the user accepts automatic saving and using this information for portal operation purposes. More information on the subject can be found in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. By closing this window the user confirms that they have read the information on cookie usage, and they accept the privacy policy and the way cookies are used by the portal. You can change the cookie settings in your browser.
The main purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of Edmund L. Gettier's argumentation against adequacy of the classical theory of knowlegde. The critic consists in showing that in both Gettier counterexamples one of two situations takes place: either at least necessary condition specified by the classial definition of knowledge remains unsatisfied (so that the counterargument failed to be valid), or all conditions are satisfied while saying we have to do with knowledge is not counterintuitive. The major step of the argumnetation is to justify a prima facie unacceptable claim that one cannot simultaneously believe that p and that p or q. The analysis is preceded by an attempt to locate the philosophical concept of knowledge in proper contexts of the verb 'to know that' usage in ordinary language.