Gettier cites the Theaetetus, Chisholm, and Ayer, for starters. Obviously the stars of Chisholm and Ayer have dimmed somewhat since then. Besides expl...
Well, it was over fifty years ago. A simpler time. Plus, it's a theory with some pedigree. Plus, "justification" is a pretty flexible word. Informally...
All Gettier says is that the Smith has "strong evidence" for the proposition that Jones owns a Ford. Do you recommend holding out for justification th...
If you just mean the usual way, then we choose from among things that already exist, but things we make don't exist until we make them. If this what y...
Quick note on the linguistics here: (1) Mary gave me £10 because I won; and (2) Mary didn't give me £10 because I won usually both presuppose that Mar...
? I mean something as simple as this: I think there are 4 beers in the fridge because I think there are 3 Guinness and 1 Bud Light. Sadly, there's 1 G...
Together with abduction, yes. This is how we reason about matters of fact, sure. Which he needn't; he only needs his belief to be justified. As Gettie...
No. But for many philosophers the intuition here is that the justified true beliefs in Gettier cases are not knowledge, so it's a problem for such acc...
(Since @"Michael" has made a gambling argument, here's the argument I've put off making on the grounds that it's a lot of trouble for little chance of...
It's the "Reply" button. Click or tap on a post and several buttons will appear. If you select some text from a post, a "Quote" button will appear. Re...
The trouble comes this way: If you have good reason to believe that p, then you have good reason to believe that p v q, and if p v q is true you have ...
I predict great success for the hypothesis that it was either coffee or something else. But the issue is getting past tautology and giving some substa...
There's coffee. There had been, a long time ago, a study linking coffee consumption to increased risk of cancer. But coffee drinkers are more likely t...
That misses the point. Gettier just constructs an artificial example to show how this works. It happens when you think you're testing p but you're act...
My version of the story goes like this: Smith puts the odds of Jones owning a Ford at 9-1, and the odds of Brown being in Barcelona at 1-99, so the od...
In my last response, I ignored -- God knows why -- that in my model, we've got a probability for q, so some of that was crosstalk. I am actually inter...
This is worth quoting again. If someone tells Smith that as a matter of fact Jones does not own a Ford, what happens to my jars? We dump all the reds ...
Right, I mean exactly that: if you believe that p, there's nothing contradictory about believing that ¬p?q and believing ¬p?¬q. It just means you get ...
We can leave out my habitual translation: 9. (¬p?¬q) & (¬p?q) 10. (F?T) & (F?F) 11. T As I said, it's all of those false premises in 10 that are annoy...
3. p v ¬q 8. p v q 9. (p v ¬q) & (p v q) 10. (T v T) & (T v F) 11. T 3 and 8 are not contradictory. You have p as a premise, so you can get anything y...
Where does 1 come from? Smith does not believe Brown is in Barcelona, but he doesn't believe Brown is not in Barcelona. If he did, the whole exercise ...
I think if you believe probably A, then you (should) believe probably what's entailed by A, and that's how Gettier treats justification. Look at the j...
And I still find this peculiar. Gettier tells us in so many words that he accepts (g), (h), and (i). The argument has to be that he shouldn't or could...
I'd still say this is unclear in Gettier's text, and what's more it's an interesting case, because we often do want to reason from premises we only ho...
And I'm not willing yet either to give up using or forbid others from using standard rules of inference. We don't like the result, agreed. So we need ...
Don't know anything about relevance logic, but my intuition throughout has been that the justification for believing p turns out to be irrelevant to t...
If you have "probably", you don't need "possibly" to stand in for "improbably": "probably" already covers both. "Possibly" is already in the backgroun...
Now this I agree with completely! But this is not an issue with logic per see, but something else. That something else could be Grice's maxims, for in...
The whole point of Gettier's Case II is that it's a bizarre coincidence that Smith's belief is true, and true for reasons that have nothing to do with...
Isn't this what "probably p" already says? Why do this superposition analysis at all? Do belief and conception vary freely, or is there some relation ...
I (and I think @"T Clark") don't see how you and Rich can believe in a life force, and y'all don't see how we can't. If there's some common ground, th...
Agreed. People find material implication and inclusive disjunction counterintuitive, and then mistake their objections to them for objections to argum...
That puts the probability of A ? B at 1. I put it at 0.901. Why would you put it at 1? Suppose you're also pretty confident that Brown is in Barcelona...
Gettier nowhere says that Smith believes Jones owns a Ford, only that he has good evidence for this belief. Let's say he thinks it highly probable. We...
Well what we'd look for if we did want to head down this road is behavior. For example, there's Ramsey's famous suggestion about how to measure degree...
Say you're a movie critic, and at the end of the year you publish a top-ten list. It's natural to attach numbers to the list precisely because to you ...
Comments