Srap Tasmaner

Does Smith believe that pvq is true?

Just to be clear, you are claiming that Smith does not actually believe that p?q is true, right?

No it doesn't. That's a conditional. It says only that if p, then p?q. We have p, therefore we have p?q. And Gettier characterizes this conditional as...

Except you don't show the actual deduction of p?q. In truth, it's barely a deduction at all. It's just or introduction.

Yes. It's really that simple. And because you can't assume that Smith knows the law of addition, Gettier specifies that he does; and because you can't...

So what does Gettier use p2 for?

You derive C1 from p1 and p3. What do you use p2 for?

It's a premise not used in your deduction anywhere.

Are you going to use p2 for anything? Also, p3 is just P?Q?P?Q.

It's still not a nice word to use, Mr. Michael. Now mind your manners, there's a good boy. ;-)

Now, now.

No. 1. Your reading of Gettier's original paper is wrong on its face and you're never going to convince anyone. 2. Even if you were right, and there w...

You're on the wrong track, in my view. I have explained why as best I can. The idea I sketched a couple months ago, that justification cannot cross th...

It is relevant. Smith accepts all three.

Another example would arise if you are allowed multiple answers. You may strongly believe that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1166, but if you a...

Once again, that is correct only if "or" is taken exclusively.

That was a couple months ago in the "'True' and 'Truth'"" thread, and might be worth revisiting now. P ? Q has four possible models: (1) P=0, Q=0 (2) ...

If you choose to submit your solution for publication, the natural choice would be Analysis.

These are not equivalent: (1) Smith does not believe that Brown is in Barcelona. (2) Smith believes that Brown is not in Barcelona.

That is not a belief of Smith.

Yes, we know. I've said as much. It's right there in the text. So what?

Here that means "Brown is not in Barcelona," and we are given no such claim.

No, it really hasn't. Smith has a false belief that (f). From it he derives, by valid inference, a true belief that (h). I describe this as an applica...

On a related note, from The Onion.

As far as I can tell, no. If Smith believes that (h), and is justified in his belief that (h), then if (h) is true, which it is, then Smith should kno...

Do you understand why that sentence is there? BTW, I've considered arguing that this is simply false: But that's a whole 'nother thing.

Is that what I said?

If Smith believes that (h), and is justified in his belief that (h), then if (h) is true, which it is, then Smith should know that (h), which he clear...

Because it all starts with a false belief, (f).

I'll have lots more to say in a little while, but first there's this: if you're still talking about all this as adding a step before Smith gets to (h)...

To some extent, you're agreeing with Gettier: the reliance on Smith's belief that Jones owns a Ford is the source of Gettier's claim that Smith's beli...

We're not actually disagreeing. :-) "p ? q" has three semantic components: p, q, and ?. You have to know what they all mean to know what "p ? q" means...

You've mentioned this several times. I see this as knowing the definition of "or". If A or B, then A-or-B. It seems interesting if you throw in "is tr...

I presented it in natural language.

As I said before, I think "A because B" is just shorthand for a modus ponens: If B then A; B; therefore A. As it happens, you had included the conditi...

2 is what matters. It's the whole point of Case II. We already have, as a premise, a justified false belief for Smith, namely p, which for some reason...

2 is the justified true belief.

What point are you making? I've said I object to 4 because it runs two premises together and obscures the main issue. I don't know if it's false, but ...

Justification is the whole point of the exercise. Smith has loads of false beliefs, starting with p. What does that get you?

But you should be. I think you're trying to block the justification of p v q by hiding p, which is the only justified belief on the table.

I heard you the first time. ;-) Let me put it this way: your statement is just shorthand for this one p & p?(p v q). It's not like you can believe "p ...

His belief that p is a justified false belief, yes. At least that's the premise, which hasn't been challenged here.

"Because" is a slippery word though. We can talk loosely about this, and it usually does no harm. I could say something like "p's being true makes p v...

As I said, Smith thinks he's applying modus ponens but he isn't, because p is false.* So yes there is also the false belief that modus ponens is appli...

Yeah, the false belief that p. I thought we'd been over this, for instance here. It's still true that p entails p v q.

Yes.

<shrug> I believe that I am shorter than the Eiffel Tower. Do you want to call that one state of affairs? Two? Three? How would you decide?

... and is therefore true. That Smith believes (g), (h), and (i) -- i.e., believes all of them to be true -- is a premise of the argument. What exactl...

In this context: beliefs have propositional content. If that's what you mean, yes. "I believe that ...", "I know that ...", "I suspect that ...", "I h...

I think that's a pretty reasonable way to define propositions, yeah. You can express the same proposition in multiple ways, in multiple languages, and...