Justified True Belief

One of the most common views of what defines knowledge is the idea of justified true belief. Take the statement. There is cow in the field.

Justified – You can see the cow directly, and indeed it is the field

True – It seems that reality of the situation is that there is a cow in the field. This would be true for anyone who has direct perceptual experience of this context or event

Belief – Given your direct experience of seeing the cow, you have believe there is a cow in the field.

You know there is a cow in the field.

However, in 1963, Edmund Gettier threw wrench into our justified + true + belief = knowledge formulation.

Take the case of the cow again. What if what you were looking at was a rock that looked like a cow, but it was obstructing your view of an actual cow.

There is cow in the field if stated by you, would not necessarily show that you have knowledge, since although there is a cow in the field, your justification for stating so, would be wrong. Your justification for “knowing” there is a cow in the field is based on the rock that looks like the cow, not the cow that is behind it.

Think of it through another case. There is coffee in the cup on the table:

You see a cup, or so you think, and tell your friend Sara who wants a cup of coffee to drink the cup on the table. When she grabs “the cup” it turns out she grabs another cup that is obstructed by the view of the cup you see in the front. You were right that there was a cup of coffee on the table but the one knew of, and intended for Sara to drink, is not the one she drank. In fact, the one you knew was already drank earlier by someone else.

There is coffee in the cup on the table is a true statement, one you believe, but are you justified in knowing that there is a cup of coffee on the table if you are looking at the wrong cup?

What are your thoughts?