Ever since I heard the characterization of knowledge as justified true belief, the proper meaning of the word "justified" has always seemed clear to me: it should mean that you acquired the belief in such a way that you would not have acquired it if it had been false, which means that you can be certain of its truth.
Unfortunately, when I've tried to classify my view of justification, I've identified multiple theories that all seem in line with mine:
- Nozick thinks that "P knows S" means that P believes S, S is true, P would not believe S if S were false, and if S is true then P will believe S. This is almost exactly my view, except I don't understand that point of the fourth condition. We've already assumed that S is true and that P believes S, so what is the force of saying that if the S is true then P will believe S? EDIT: Can someone clarify what kind of conditional is used in Nozick's fourth condition?
- Goldman's Causal Theory of Knowledge states that "justified" means that the truth caused your belief. That's also in line with what I'm saying, because I see "A caused B" as "if A had not occurred, B would not have occurred".
- Infallibilism states that that the justification of your belief must necessitate its truth. Again, that's consistent with my view: the justification for your belief must be such that it could never lead you astray. In other words, if it leads you to believe something, that something must be true. And if that something had not true, then you wouldn't have acquired the belief.
So what school of epistemology do I belong to? How can my views be consistent with three different theories? Or am I missing subtle distinctions between them? Are there other views closer to mine?