错误重建的问题进一步削弱了高盛的理论。有时一个人可能有一个真实的信念，但是让他们拥有这种知识的因果链是不正确的。例如，一个特工发现了他最好的朋友的尸体，他认为他死了，因为他失去了身体的一部分。特工认为这个朋友是被斩首的，但实际上，他死后被毒死并斩首。由于因果链的错误性质，这不算知识。肯尼斯•科利尔(Kenneth Collier)在其1973年的论文《认知因果理论的反例》(Contra the因果理论)中，找到了一个与高盛理论相反的例子。科利尔举了一个迷幻药上的药剂的例子这个例子强调了一个事实那就是任何被证明是正确的信仰，都不能因为它们处于迷幻状态而得到因果解释。在论文中，科利尔给了史密斯迷幻药，他产生了幻觉，认为他的妻子有外遇。事实上，他的妻子有外遇，但这能算知识吗?当然，这只是幻觉导致的错误重建的一个例子，或者根本没有因果链的例子。科利尔认为”这里的困难在于斯密认为p是由p以与他的知识无关的方式造成的这一事实是可能的”但这意味着因果关系不能成为知识的充分条件。最终，高盛的因果理论试图通过增加一个额外的条款来解决Gettier问题，该条款规定，真正的信仰必须是因果链的结果。他使用知觉、记忆和推理的例子来强调因果关系可以解决Gettier问题的方式。但由于感官的不可靠性、先验知识的缺乏和错误重构的问题，他的理论整体上是有缺陷的。我选择关注高盛的理论，但它只是众多解决Gettier问题尝试中的一个例子。其他提出的解决方案包括消除诸如运气、失败和虚假证据等条件，这些条件由昂格尔、莱勒和莱坎等哲学家提出。这些提出的解决方案，如因果联系理论都是有缺陷的，因此不能对Gettier问题提供足够的响应。因此，我不认为Gettier问题可以解决，因为我同意证明正确的信念并不一定意味着知识。
The problem of incorrect reconstruction is one that further weakens Goldman’s theory. There are times when one may have a true belief but the causal chain which allowed them to have that knowledge is incorrect. For example, an agent discovers his best friend’s body and believes that he is dead due to the fact that he is missing body parts. The agent assumes that the friend died by decapitation but actually, he was poisoned and decapitated following his death. This doesn’t count as knowledge due to the false nature of the causal chain. Kenneth Collier in his 1973 essay “Contra the Causal Theory of Knowing” finds a counter-example to Goldman’s theory which indicates no causal chain. Collier uses the example of an agent on a hallucinogenic drug which highlights the fact that any beliefs the subject has which turn out to be true, cannot be explained causally due to the hallucinogenic state that they are in. In the paper, Collier has given Smith the hallucinogenic drug and he hallucinates that his wife is having an affair. In actual fact, his wife is having an affair but can this count as knowledge? Surely this is just an example of incorrect reconstruction due to the hallucinations or an example of no causal chain at all. Collier argues that “the difficulty here seems to be that it is possible for Smith’s belief that p to be caused by the fact that p in ways that are irrelevant to his knowledge. But this means that the causal connection cannot be a sufficient condition for knowledge.”Ultimately, Goldman’s causal theory attempts to resolve the Gettier problem by adding an extra clause which states that true belief has to be a result of a causal chain. He uses examples of perception, memory and inference to highlight the ways in which causality can solve the Gettier problem. But his theory is flawed overall due to the unreliability of the senses, a lack of a focus on a priori knowledge and the problem of incorrect reconstruction. I chose to focus on Goldman’s theory but it is just one example out of a large number of attempts to resolve the Gettier problem. Other proposed solutions include eliminating conditions such as luck, defeat and false evidence as put forth by philosophers like Unger, Lehrer and Lycan. These proposed solutions, like the causal connection theory are all flawed and thus do not provide an adequate response to the Gettier problem. Therefore, I do not believe that the Gettier problem can be resolved due to my agreement that justified true belief does not necessarily imply knowledge.