What is the difference between acceptable reasons and sufficient reasons? Give an example of reasons that are sufficient to believe something but not acceptable.
Could evidence be overridden without being undermined? Explain using an example.
The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge says that knowledge is justified true belief. When presented with a definition that analyzes some idea or concept into several parts or elements, it is a good idea to investigate how those elements are related to one another. To do this, one asks whether it would be possible to have two of the elements without the third. Is it possible for someone to have a belief that is justified (i.e., based on epistemic reasons) even though the belief is not true? Try to construct stories to test whether these elements are independent?