Appealing to counterfactual conditionals, Robert Nozick seeks to provide an alternative analysis of knowledge that is not only immune to Gettier-like counterexamples, but can also overcome other counterexamples faced by other alternative analyses of knowledge. In addition to the two conditions of truth and belief, Nozick's analysis has two counterfactual conditions, the most important of which is his third condition known in the literature as the sensitivity condition, leading to tremendous discussions. For example, Collin McGinn and Saul Kripke try to show that this condition is problematic for one or another reason. In this paper, I will show that there are some replies to the objections raised by McGinn and Kripke, but I will finally show that the sensitivity condition is implausible because of Kripke's counterexamples.
)