Michael

Recognising some evidence as ruling out the possibility that you're wrong, as per your opening post. If I can't recognise some evidence as ruling out ...

It means knowing that the tree you see isn't just in your head. That you're not a brain in a vat or being deceived by an evil demon.

The relevance is that simply having a veridical experience isn't enough to claim that one has knowledge of the external world. You need the periphery ...

In my example I see your blond mother, but I still don't know that your mother is blond. It's not enough that I exercise a reliable detecting capacity...

But again, I don't understand the relevance of this. You're talking about a material conditional, whereas the issue at hand is a disjunction. "London ...

If c makes a connection then c isn't justified by the fact that it rains every day. You're equivocating. Either "if ... then" implies a causal connect...

It's not enough that the evidence objectively entails the truth of p. If I meet your mother and if she has blond hair then the evidence objectively en...

Then you're a lazy benefits scrounger. Although how does disability benefit work in the U.S? In the UK you get it even if you work.

My girlfriend is, and I was briefly on Job Seeker's and Housing Benefit (about 6 months). If you need it then you need it. Nothing to be ashamed about...

You've phrased this very ambiguously. Let's say I meet a woman and that, unbeknown to me, she's your mother. In one sense it is correct to say that I ...

You're just repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam. I can see I'm wasting my time.

No you haven't. You've denied it. But it's a fact of logic that C1. p ? q ? p entails C2. p ? q.

No it isn't. There's also: C2. p v q is true My belief that Donald Trump is the President isn't exhausted by: C1. Donald Trump is the President becaus...

Yes, and he believes it to be true. And it's true. So he has a true belief.

Smith knows what "Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" means. That's how he knows that it follows from "Jones owns a Ford". Your arguments just...

Because there isn't one. Just look up modus ponens: If something is F, it is G. a is F. Therefore, a is G. If Socrates is a man then he is mortal Socr...

I did use a disjunction: 1. p 2. p ? p ? q 3. p ? q And in English 1. London is the capital city of England 2. If London is the capital city of Englan...

There isn't. They're valid. It's modus ponens.

I did use a disjunction: 1. p 2. p ? p ? q 3. p ? q I swear you're just being wilfully ignorant now. But then you've repeatedly shown that you don't u...

But I'm not saying that they're equivalent. I'm saying that the latter entails the former. If I believe that Donald Trump is the President because he ...

No, yours are. You've said "False premisses and valid form cannot yield true conclusions". And of the following you've said "Can't get to 3 from 1 and...

I'm not saying that there are problems. I'm saying that it's incomplete, which is why I am filling it out: C2. p ? q is true (from C1)

How many times am I going to explain this? I'm not saying that they're equivalent. This is just a strawman. I'm saying that the latter entails the for...

C2. p ? q is true (from C1)

C2. p ? q is true (from C1)

Yes. But Gettier doesn't just want to say it. He does say it. It's one of those premises that it doesn't make sense to refute, like "Jones was renting...

And to repeat my earlier question yet again, do you believe that this statement is true? London is the capital city of England and/or I was born in Le...

I'll repeat (and add to) my previous explanation yet again: 1. Smith believes that p 2. Smith believes that p ? p ? q 3. From 1 and 2, Smith believes ...

I know what you're arguing. I'm explaining that you're wrong. If Smith believes that P is true and if Smith believes that P entails Q (and if Smith is...

We're talking about what Smith believes to be true. If he believes that the premises of a valid argument are true then he will believe that the conclu...

So having a veridical experience doesn't prove that the experience is veridical. And the sceptic's claim is that we can't know that our experiences ar...

I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that if Smith is rational and if he recognises that the argument is valid and if he believes that the premises a...

I'm not saying it does. It follows from 2 and 1. It's a syllogism with a major and minor premise. Perhaps I should spell it out like this for you: 1. ...

If 1 is true and if 2 is true then 3 is true. Modus ponens. Again, elementary logic.

Yes.

Yes it does. It's modus ponens. This is elementary logic. 1. p 2. p ? p ? q 3. p ? q

For one, I can only know that she hasn't cheated on me if she hasn't cheated on me. Knowledge requires truth, not just no reason to doubt. But then as...

Yes. If I believe that (f) is true and if I believe that (g), (h), and (i) are entailed by (f) then I will believe that (g), (h), and (i) are true. Th...

So you equate knowledge with certainty (in the sense of conviction). The sceptic doesn't, and neither do most philosophers. I might not have any groun...

That the experience is caused by an external world is not that it is of that external world, else all dreams would also be of an external world (and s...

You have to look at this from the perspective of the person under consideration. He can only treat his experiences as being good evidence that his exp...

That's not experiencing an external world. That's using rational consideration to try to explain the consistency of experiences. A brain in a vat woul...

So all you're saying is that my concept of a ghost can only include visual qualities that I've experienced in real life (forgetting the other senses f...

That's an implied exclusive or. The Gettier case is an explicit inclusive or. And I don't actually understand how this relates to what I said to you. ...

Except I don't imagine ghosts to be electromagnetic radiation. I imagine them to be non-physical things. No I don't. All I need to do is accept that a...

Furthermore, at best your argument can only have you conclude that at some point you've had an external world experience. That doesn't help you to det...

A disembodied person. So I've had the experience of a disembodied thing? I haven't. Again, brains in a vat can conceive of an external world.

So I must have seen a ghost because I have the concept of ghosts? That's wrong. I have the concept, but I've never seen one. A brain in a vat can conc...

What grounds our concept of Gods, or demons, or unicorns, or ghosts, and so on? We don't need to have had an experience of an external world to have t...

But simply having a veridical experience isn't evidence that it's a veridical experience, just as simply having the real painting isn't evidence that ...