He focuses on facts of objects and then tries to create a causal connection between those facts. In the Gettier case however, there is no causal connection. This is different to how Lehrer would claim they solved Gettier’s problem; that there is a falsehood used as a condition dependent for knowing. Goldman rejects that there is any complete account of knowledge taking place in Gettier examples. He is able to avoid the Gettier problem by implementing a process that demonstrated how inferential knowledge is …show more content…
The inference of S is not warranted because the inference was accidental and does not genuinely confirm that the volcano erupted. There was a mistake because S’s perspective was wrong. This problem of dependence on falsehood is a similar one that conservative accounts of knowledge also face and continuously try to correct for by adding more restrictions about what would be considered a falsehood. Goldman does not try to categorize falsehoods but only tries to address that causal chains that rely on luck or wrong perspective are not efficient enough to be