A Critique of Keith Lehrer's Analysis of Knowledge

As the best known defender of coherentism in justification, Keith Lehrer- refers to the tripartite meaning of knowledge in English and introduces the third meaning, i.e. confirmation of certain information, as the one recognized in epistemology. However, he does not consider this literal analysis sufficient, and turns to the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge. Contrary to the current view in western epistemology, he introduces a fourth element, i.e. indefeasibility in addition to the three conventional elements of belief, truth, and justification. He regards designalizing as the reality of truth, replacing the condition of belief with that of acceptance, aiming at ascertaining reality and avoiding falsehood. Declaring access to adequate reason and evidence as the purpose of justification, he adds the condition of indefeasibility to the tripartite components of knowledge in order to escape the Gettier problem. According to the authors, there are certain problems with the four elements of Lehrer, including the following: first, interpretation of truth as designalizing is insufficient. Secondly, with regard to acceptance, there is confusion between confirmation by heart and mental confirmation. Thirdly, there are certain ambiguities in Lehrer’s words concerning justification.