Edmund Gettier famously argued that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. Do you think Gettier is correct? If so, what’s missing? If not, why not? Provide a clear explanation of Gettier’s argument, making sure to explain how his brief thought experiments are supposed to provide a counter-examples to Plato’s definition of knowledge. Do you think Gettier is right that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge? If yes (i.e., you agree with Gettier), then what else is required for knowledge? Consider how someone might try to object to your assessment, and then provide apersuasive, fair-minded response to this objection.

1) I agree with his assessment. Even speaking from a religious standpoint, justified true belief is supposed to lead to faith, which is the fervent belief in things hoped for but not seen. For absolute knowledge, there needs to be observable proof. These are different ideas, though, because faith and religion can be just as true without absolute, visible proof.
2) Gettier's argument is that true knowledge requires a definitive proof, and he outlines several counter-examples to the idea of knowledge and belief being different, though sometimes equally true, things. For one such example, he states that he watched a Wimbledon Final where one contestant beat another, but in reality he was seeing the replay of the previous year's final, in which the same man beat the same opponent. His belief that the contestant was the victor was true, but it was not knowledge, because he had not experienced the true event.
3) As I have stated, I believe that some form of absolute and definitive experiential proof is necessary for true knowledge. There must be something tangible and defined that can be pointed to, justifying the belief as knowledge.
4) The main objection to this idea is the basis of belief and faith, where knowledge is imparted by another and trusted based on the value of the source. There is nothing wrong with this type of understanding, and, as Gettier illuminated, it can be just as factual and true as knowledge, but without experiential proof and firsthand evidence, you must state that you believe something, not that you know something.