ABSTRACT
Epistemologists have long argued that an opinion or belief being correct is not enough for its being knowledge. Most contemporary epistemologists also argue that even being correct and well supported by evidence is not enough to make an opinion or belief an instance of knowledge. Recent epistemology, in particular, has sought to do justice to these standard views by describing forms of luck that preclude a particular opinion or belief from being knowledge. This chapter motivates—and critically evaluates—that epistemologically widespread picture.
