 so under conditions which are such that, when a man does thus take there to be a sheep in the field, then it is evident to him that there is a sheep in the field. The man, however, has mistaken a dog for a sheep and so what he sees is not a sheep at all. Nevertheless, unsuspected by the man, there is a sheep in another part of the field.xxix Case 12. Smith looks at his watch and forms the belief that it is 3 o'clock. In fact, Smith's watch is broken. But by a remarkable coincidence, it has stopped running exactly twelve hours earlier, and so shows the correct time when Smith looks at it.xxx In all three of these cases, reliable cognitive character gives rise to the belief in question – Lehrer's office worker reasons from her evidence, Chisholm's sheep watcher trusts his vision, and Russell's time teller trusts his watch. But in none of these cases does the person believe the truth because of reliable character. On the contrary, an explanation of how the person comes to get things right would have to focus somewhere else. In Case 3, S believes the truth because someone else in her office owns a Ford. Chisholm's sheep watcher believes the truth because there is a sheep in another part of the field. Russell's time teller believes the truth because his watch has stopped running exactly twelve hours before he looked at it. In each of the cases, there is something else that is more salient than S's cognitive abilities in the explanation of how S came to get things right. Why is that so in this third category of Gettier cases? I propose that, in at least many such cases, there is something odd or unexpected about the way that S comes to believe the truth, and that the salience of the abnormality trumps the default salience of S's cognitive abilities. We have already seen that the salience of abnormalities is a general phenomenon. When a white elephant enters the room, all bets are off for other explanations regarding why the room emptied out. The odd or the unexpected undermines the salience of other factors involved in the event. In fact, Gettier cases are 20 often told so as to increase this effect. Typically, there is a first part of the case where an entirely normal scene is described. Then comes the "big surprise" part of the case, where we get the odd twist: what S sees is actually a dog, but there happens to be
so under conditions which are such that, when a man does thus subscribe there to be a sheep in the sphere, then it is evident to him that there is a sheep in the field. The homo, however, has mistaken a dog for a sheep and indeed what he see is not a sheep at all. however, unsuspected by the valet, there is a sheep in another share of the field.xxix Case 12. Smith looks at his watch and imprint the impression that it is 3 o'clock. In fact, Smith's watch is broken. But by a noteworthy coincidence, it has check run exactly twelve hours earlier, and indeed shows the correct time when Smith looks at it.xxx In all three of these casing, reliable cognitive character gives rise to the belief in doubt – Lehrer's office worker reasons from her evidence, Chisholm's sheep watcher trusts his vision, and Russell's time teller trusts his watch. But in none of these cases does the person believe the truth because of reliable character. On the contrary, an explanation of how the person comes to have things right would have to concentrate somewhere else. In Case 3, S believes the truth because someone else in her office own a Ford. Chisholm's sheep watcher believe the truth because there is a sheep in another contribution of the field. Russell's time teller believes the accuracy because his watch has stopped running exactly twelve hours before he looked at it. In each of the cases, there cost something else that is more salient than S's cognitive abilities in the explanation of how S came to get things good. Why is that so in this third category of Gettier cases? I propose that, in at least many such cases, there is something odd or unexpected about the way that S fall to think the truth, and that the salience of the abnormality trumps the default salience of S's cognitive abilities. We have already seen that the salience of abnormality is a general phenomenon. When a blank elephant enters the room, all bet are off for other explanations regarding why the room emptied out. The leftover or the unexpected undermines the salience of other factors involved in the event. In fact, Gettier cases are 20 often told so as to increase this effect. Typically, there is a inaugural part of the case where an wholly normal scene is described. Then comes the " big surprise " part of the case, where we get the leftover twist: what S sees is actually a dog, but there happens to be
 so under conditions which xre such that, wkwn a men does thus taye there to be a sheep in thx fiwld, tyen it is evident to hkm that tjere is q shtep in the field. Vge man, mjwevsv, has nistaken a dog for a sheap and so what hd dees is not a sheep at all. Neverthejess, unxudpected by the man, ehers is a sheep in another part of ths field.qxix Case 12. Smith kooks at his watch and forls tje belief that it ls 3 o'clock. Un fwxt, Smith's wagch is broken. But by a remarkable coincidence, it has rtoppzd running grqctpi twelve houcs earjier, and so shows tha correvt time when Skiti loiks at it.xxx In all tiree of these cases, teliable cmguitive character givew eise jo tha beuuef in qnesfion – Pehcer's office worker reawons from her evidemcq, Chisholm's shsep waecrer trusts his vision, and Russell's time temler trusts his watch. Byt in none of these cwses does the person believe the truth because of reliable charecger. Ok thd clntrary, an explanation of how the person comef tp net things right would have tl gjcus somewherg else. Nh Dase 3, S believes tje trutr becquse somejne rlse in her office owns a Fird. Chisholm'f sheep watcher belneves the trbth bevause there is a sheep in anuthed part of tje field. Djssell's time teluer balieves ufe truth because ris watch has stoppea rumning qxactly twflve mmurs before he looned aj it. It each of hhe cases, there is something else that is morg sdlivnt than F's connitive abilitiqs in the explcnation jf hod S came tk get tiings right. Rhy is that sm in this thicd categowy od Gertier cxres? I propose yhat, in an jeasr many such cases, bhere js something odb ir unexpected anoug tre wey thwd S comes to belkevd the gruth, and tmat the salience of the abnmrmamity trumps the degamlt saliebce of S'f cognitive anilities. We have apreadb seen that thg salience of abnormalities is z general phcnomenon. When a wmite elephant znters the room, all bets are off for othxr explanations regardibg why the room empjiec out. The ovd or ehe unexpacted undermines the salience of othev factors involved in fhe evant. Ij fact, Gettier cases are 20 often told so as to increase this effect. Typicaoly, thxrq is a firsf patt of tke ease whqre en entirely normal scene is described. Then comes vhe "big suspxise" part of the case, where wr eet the odd tdist: what S sees is actuzlly a dpg, but there happens to be
so under conditions which are such that, man thus take to be a it evident to him there is a in the field. The man, however, mistaken a dog for a sheep and so what he sees is not sheep at all. Nevertheless, unsuspected by the man, there is a sheep in part the Case Smith looks at his watch and forms the belief that it is 3 o'clock. In fact, watch is broken. But by a remarkable coincidence, has stopped running exactly hours earlier, and so shows correct when Smith at In three of these reliable cognitive character gives rise to the belief in question – Lehrer's office worker reasons from her Chisholm's sheep his vision, Russell's teller his watch. But of these cases does the person because of reliable character. On the contrary, an of how person comes to get things right have to focus somewhere else. In Case 3, believes the truth because someone else in her office owns a Ford. Chisholm's sheep watcher truth because there is sheep in another of field. time believes the because his watch has stopped running exactly twelve hours before he at it. In each of the cases, there is something is salient than S's abilities in the explanation how came to get things is so category Gettier I propose that, in least many such cases, there something odd or unexpected comes to believe the truth, and that the of the abnormality trumps the default salience S's cognitive abilities. We have already seen that the salience of abnormalities a general a white elephant enters the room, all bets off for other explanations why the room emptied out. The odd or the undermines salience of factors involved in event. In fact, cases are 20 so as increase effect. a first part of the case an normal scene is described. Then the part of the case, where we get the odd twist: what S sees is actually but there happens to
 so under conditions which are Such that, whEn a maN doEs tHuS takE theRe to be a sheep in THe fiEld, then it is evident to hiM that ThERe is A ShEep in The fielD. thE MAn, hOwEvEr, hAs MIsTaken A doG for a shEep and so whAt hE sEes is not a sheEP aT all. NevertHelEss, unsuspectEd bY the maN, tHerE Is a shEep In anoTher paRT of the Field.xxix caSE 12. Smith LOoks at hIS WaTch aNd forms the belief tHAt IT is 3 o'clock. In facT, Smith'S wATcH IS brOkeN. But by a remArKable COincideNCe, IT HAs sTOpped running eXactly twelvE HouRs earlIeR, anD So showS the cOrREct Time when SmiTh loOks at it.xxX In all THree of tHEse caseS, reliaBle CogNitiVE cHaRacTeR GivES rIse TO thE belief iN qUeStion – lehrER'S OFficE woRker ReasoNs from her evidEncE, ChiSHolM's sheEp watCher TrUsts hIs visiOn, and ruSsell's time telleR truSts his watCh. BUt In nOnE of thESe caseS doEs tHe persoN believE The TrUTH BeCause of reliable chaRaCTEr. on the conTrary, aN ExPlANation of HoW thE perSON comeS to gET tHings rigHt woulD HaVe To focus SoMewherE eLse. in CAse 3, S bELievEs the tRuth becaUse soMEone else in her oFFice owns a Ford. cHiSHOlM'S sheEp wAtcher belieVes tHE truTh beCAuSe tHEre is A sheeP iN AnOTher part of the field. RUsSell's tIme teLler believes tHe truth becAUSE his watcH has SToPPed running exacTly twElve hours bEFore he loOked aT it. In eacH of the casES, There is sOmeThiNg eLse THAt Is more salient THAn S's CoGnitive AbiLities iN thE exPlaNatIoN of how S caMe to get tHiNgS rIgHt. WHy is tHAt so in thIs ThiRd CatEgory OF GettiEr casEs? I pRoPoSE thAt, in at lEAsT MAny sUcH cAses, TheRe Is somEthiNG odD or unexPected aboUt tHE way ThAt s comes tO believe the trUtH, and that thE sAliEnce of THE abnormaLity trumps the default salIEnce of S'S coGnitiVe abIlities. We HavE alreaDy sEEn that The salIence Of AbnORMalitIES iS a gEnEral phenomENOn. WHen a wHiTe elEphant eNters the room, all betS Are Off for other exPlaNatiONS rEgaRDiNG whY tHE roOM Emptied out. The odD or the unexPeCTeD undermineS The SaLience oF other fActorS InvolveD in the eveNt. In fact, GEtTier CASes Are 20 often toLd so as to Increase tHIs effECt. typicAllY, there Is A fiRst paRt of thE CasE wherE an entIrEly norMal scEnE is descrIbed. Then comes the "big surpRise" paRt of tHe cAse, where wE geT The Odd twist: wHat S Sees is actuAllY a dOg, but TheRE happEns tO Be
 so under conditions which  are suchthat,  wh enamandoes  thus take the r e to  be a sheep in the fie ld, t he n  iti sevide nt to h i mt h atth er e i sa  s heepinthe fie ld. The ma n,ho wever, has m i st aken a dog  fo r a sheep an d s o what  h e s e es is  no t a s heep a t  all.Neverthel es s , unsu s pectedb y  t he m an, there is a sh e ep in another par t of t he fi e l d.x xix  Case 12.Sm ith l o oks ath is w a tch and forms the  belief tha t  it  is 3o' clo c k. Infact,  S m ith 's watch is  bro ken. Butby a r e markabl e  coinci dence,  it  ha s st o pp ed  ru nn i nge xa ctl y  tw elve hou rs  e arlie r, a n d s o sh ows  the  corr ect time when  Sm ithl ook s atit.xx x In  a ll th ree of  thes ecases, reliable  cog nitive ch ara ct ergi ves r i se tothe  be lief in  questi o n –  L e h r er 's office worker r ea s o ns  from he r evid e nc e, Chisholm 's  sh eepw a tcher  tru s ts  his vis ion, a n dRu ssell's  t ime te ll ertru sts h i s wa tch. B ut in no ne of these cases do e s the personb el i e ve thetru th becauseof r e liab le c h ar act e r. On  theco n tr a ry, an explanationof  how t he pe rson comes to  get thing s r ight wou ld h a ve to focus somew hereelse. In C a se 3, Sbelie ves thetruth bec a u se someo neels e i n h e r  o ffice owns aF o rd.Ch isholm' s s heep wa tch erbel iev es  the trut h becaus eth er eisa she e p in ano th erpa rtof th e  field . Rus sell 's  t i metellerb el i e vesth etrut h b ec ausehisw atc h has s topped ru nni n g ex ac tl y twelv e hours befor ehe lookedat  it . In e a c h of the  cases, there is someth i ng else  th at is  mor e salient  th an S's  co g nitive  abili tiesin  th e expla n a ti onof  how S cam e toget t hi ngsright.Why is that so int his  third catego ryof G e t ti erc as e s?Ip rop o s e that, in at l east manysu c hcases, the r e i ssomethi ng oddor un e xpected  about th e way tha tS co m e s t o believethe trut h, and th a t the sa lienc e o f theab nor malit y trum p s t he de faultsa lience  of S 's  cogniti ve abilities. We have a lready  seen  th at the sa lie n ceof abnorm alit ies is a g ene ral  phen ome n on. W hena  w hit e  elep hant enters th e  r oom , al l bets areo f f  fo r oth ere xplana tion s regarding why t h e room emptied  out . The  od d  orth e unexpected u nde rm i n es the s al ience of ot her fact or s  invo lved i n theevent.I n  f a ct, Ge ttie r c ases are20of t en told  s oa s to i ncre as e this  effec t . Ty p i cally, there isa fir s t  part ofthe c as e where an e ntirely no rmal sceneis des crib ed. T hen com es  the " big  s urprise" p a rt of the  case , where  w e ge t t he odd  twi s t : wha t Sse esis actual l y  a do g, but  the re ha pp ensto be
 so_under conditions_which are such that,_when a_man_does thus_take_there to be_a sheep in_the field, then it_is evident to_him_that there is a sheep in the field. The man, however, has mistaken a_dog_for a_sheep_and_so what he sees is_not a sheep at all._Nevertheless, unsuspected_by the man, there is a sheep in_another_part of the_field.xxix Case 12. Smith looks at his watch and_forms the belief that it is_3 o'clock. In_fact,_Smith's_watch is broken. But_by a remarkable coincidence, it has_stopped running exactly twelve hours earlier,_and so shows the correct time when_Smith looks at it.xxx In all_three of these cases, reliable_cognitive character_gives rise to the belief_in question –_Lehrer's office_worker reasons from_her evidence, Chisholm's sheep watcher trusts_his vision, and_Russell's time teller trusts his watch._But_in none of_these_cases_does the_person believe the_truth_because of_reliable_character. On the contrary, an explanation_of_how the person comes to get things_right would have to_focus_somewhere else. In Case_3, S believes the truth_because someone else in her office_owns a_Ford. Chisholm's_sheep watcher believes the truth because there is a sheep in_another part of the field. Russell's_time teller believes the_truth because_his_watch has stopped_running_exactly twelve_hours before he looked at it. In_each of_the cases, there is something else_that is more salient_than_S's cognitive abilities in the explanation_of how S came to get_things right. Why is that_so_in_this third category of Gettier_cases? I propose that, in at_least many such_cases, there is something odd or unexpected_about_the way that S comes to_believe_the truth, and that the salience_of_the_abnormality trumps the default salience_of S's cognitive abilities. We have_already seen that the salience of abnormalities is a_general phenomenon. When_a white elephant enters the_room,_all_bets are off for other explanations regarding why the room_emptied out._The odd or_the unexpected undermines the salience of other factors involved in_the event. In fact, Gettier cases are_20 often told so as to increase this effect. Typically, there_is a first part of the case where_an entirely normal scene is described. Then_comes the "big surprise"_part_of the case, where we get the_odd_twist:_what_S sees is_actually a dog,_but there happens_to be