The phrase “Gettier Case” is used with (at least) three different meanings that I’ve noticed.

First, it is sometimes used to refer to cases where S derives a true conclusion p from a false premise q. This is obviously true of the original cases in Gettier’s paper. Since the meanings are strictly weaker as we continue through the list, this isn’t a unique property of this interpretation.

Second, it is sometimes used to refer to cases where S forms a true, and justified, belief, but where the reasons it is true, and the reasons it is justified, are entirely different. Williamson’s binocular vision case is like this. S has one reliable eye, and one unreliable eye. S forms the belief that p on the basis of the input from his unreliable eye, although at the same time his reliable eye also forms the representation that p. Arguably this is justified (at least S has evidence for p), but it isn’t knowledge.

Third, it is sometimes used to refer to any justified true belief that isn’t knowledge.

Since this is basically a technical term, it would be good to have some standardisation of the meaning. And it would be good to standardise on the most epistemological significant of the categories. (In my opinion, that’s the second one, but that could be wrong.) Does anyone have a suggestion for this?