葛梯爾反例提出咗之後，好多哲學家都嘗試對呢個問題作出回應。呢個反例表明，得到辯護嘅真信念並唔係知識嘅充分條件。噉點樣先可以正確噉對“知道”進行描述？點樣先係掌握知識嘅充分條件？
After the Gettier counter-example was proposed, many philosophers tried to respond to this question. This counter-example shows that true conviction to be defended is not a sufficient condition for knowledge. How, then, can we correctly describe "knowing" and what are the sufficient conditions for acquiring knowledge?