One of the most remarkable things about human existence is that there is a subject, an “I,” who experiences intellectual cognition of external things and is able to reflect on these experiences as a cognitive act itself. How do things that exist outside of my mind exist inside my mind in a way that allows me to understand them? The goal of any theory of mind should be to answer questions like this, and in evaluating the Gettier problem as objectively as possible, we will attempt to solve it to see if it can withstand the single most penetrating question we can ask it: Is it true which are inevitable? In this essay I will examine Gettier's article to answer the question of whether or not man can achieve knowledge and, if so, how? I will do this by recounting the problems Gettier poses to the traditional understanding of knowledge as “justified true belief,” and then present critical responses to get to the truth of whether Gettier's problems are inevitable, in particular by attempting to answer them. with the "Causal Theory", the "Defeasibility Theory" and finally considering knowledge as "true belief with sufficient guarantees". Gettier undermines the traditional understanding of knowledge by showing that a person can make an apparently correct inference from a belief he or she holds. justified in holding it, but which is false. It shows that we can arrive at a justified true belief, but whose truth is unrelated to the premises from which it was deduced. It is “possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false.” In his first example Gettier shows that a true statement can be deduced from a false statement. To briefly outline the case, Smith has strong evidence… halfway through the article… feasibility and “causal” theories, and knowledge as “true and warranted belief” require us to make a certain “leap of consciousness". faith' when sometimes considering the question of knowledge. To avoid skepticism, I believe that knowledge does not necessarily have to be infallible, but rather probable. This does not mean that a proposition must not be true, it means that something we consider knowledge is not something beyond a reasonable doubt, but something that it would make no sense to doubt. Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and adapting them to the search for reliability, but we also have to establish a reasonable connection between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes nonsensical when questioned. So while Gettier problems may be inevitable, that doesn't mean we are completely starved of knowledge.