The Gettier Problem challenges the traditional tripartite definition of knowledge, which states that knowledge requires truth, justification, and certainty.

Edmund Gettier formulated the Gettier Problem in his 1963 paper, 'Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?'

The main argument of the Gettier Problem is that there are cases where a person can have a justified true belief but still not know something, thereby challenging the traditional tripartite definition of knowledge.

All of the above examples are examples of Gettier cases, where a person has a justified true belief but still does not know something.

The Gettier Problem has a number of philosophical implications, including calling into question the traditional tripartite definition of knowledge, suggesting that knowledge is not as reliable as we thought, and raising doubts about the possibility of objective knowledge.

Philosophers have responded to the Gettier Problem in a number of ways, including proposing new definitions of knowledge, arguing that the Gettier Problem is not a genuine problem, and developing new theories of justification.

The reliabilism/foundationalism debate is one of the most common responses to the Gettier Problem. Reliabilists argue that knowledge is justified true belief that is produced by a reliable process, while foundationalists argue that knowledge is justified true belief that is based on indubitable foundations.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone changes the definition of a term in order to exclude an unwanted example. This fallacy is often used in response to the Gettier Problem, where someone might argue that a Gettier case is not a genuine case of knowledge because it does not meet the new definition of knowledge.

The infallibility of perception is the view that our senses are always reliable. This view is often used in response to the Gettier Problem, where someone might argue that a Gettier case is not a genuine case of knowledge because it is based on a mistaken sensory experience.

The internalism/externalism debate is a debate about whether knowledge is a mental state or a physical state. Internalists argue that knowledge is a mental state, while externalists argue that knowledge is a physical state.

The reliabilism/foundationalism debate is a debate about whether knowledge is justified true belief that is produced by a reliable process or justified true belief that is based on indubitable foundations.

The main criticism of reliabilism is that it is circular. Reliabilists define knowledge as justified true belief that is produced by a reliable process, but they then define a reliable process as one that produces justified true beliefs. This is a circular definition because it defines knowledge in terms of itself.

The main criticism of foundationalism is that it is question-begging. Foundationalists define knowledge as justified true belief that is based on indubitable foundations, but they then beg the question of what indubitable foundations are. This is a question-begging definition because it assumes the very thing that is being questioned.

The Gettier Problem is still being debated by philosophers. There is no consensus on whether it has been solved or not.