Michael

From your first premise: For any p, if a subject doesn’t have evidence which rule out (perhaps conclusively) the possibility of an error regarding p (...

To recognise some feature that veridical experiences have and non-veridical experiences don't (or vice versa).

To be able to determine if I'm having a veridical experience or a non-veridical experience. If I can't determine which I'm having then I can't know wh...

You weren't reading properly. I'm saying that if the experiences which we refer to as waking experiences are of an imaginary world, and if waking expe...

I said that if "dreaming" is defined as being of an imaginary world, and if the experiences which we claim to be waking experiences (defined as experi...

It's the example of the real painting and the forgery. I'm given one and believe that it's real. In the case that I'm given the real painting my belie...

You seem to be conflating. I'll set it out more clearly. 1. We have experiences of type A and experiences of type B. 2. We refer to experiences of typ...

They're not equivalent. They're different. But neither are experiences of an external world.

The claim is that if the experience isn't veridical then your belief is false and that if your experience is veridical then your belief is just lucky....

This is just pedantry. You can always accept the meaningful distinction between wakefulness (experiences of an external world) and dreaming (experienc...

But still, your argument still seems to beg the question and assume that our experiences are veridical, whereas one of the sceptics claims is that the...

I've already addressed it. It's epistemic luck, not knowledge. Unless you can distinguish between a veridical and a non-veridical experience (or betwe...

But we can't distinguish between a veridical experience of a tree and a non-veridical experience of a tree (or so the sceptic claims), and so the anal...

You're not comparing like for like here. Simply having a veridical experience is comparable to simply being shown an Arabic word. Just as the latter i...

So knowing Arabic requires more than just being presented with Arabic words. Somehow I need to learn that these symbols are in fact Arabic words. And ...

Then let's change my example slightly. I am given a piece of paper that either has random symbols drawn onto it or Arabic writing. In either case I ha...

Let's say that I have a confession written in French that John is guilty of some crime, but that I don't read French. According to my understanding of...

Yes. To believe that this conditional is true is not (necessarily) to believe that the antecedent is the cause of the consequent. If you have to add t...

There is, and I haven't. One of the truth conditions of "Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is Jones owning a Ford, which Smith believes. How...

They do understand that the two are in relation and interaction. They claim that they causally influence one another. Why doesn't it make sense? Whate...

Then this shows that you'd just be talking past the dualist, because when the dualist says that the body is of one substance and the mind is of anothe...

So what's the difference between saying "this and this are of the same substance" and saying "this and this are real"?

It does if you accept epistemic closure. But even if you don't, Gettier states that Smith does believe Q. He's a rational person who believes that thi...

The e = mc2 formula is for massive particles at rest. For massless particles in motion it's e = pc. The full formula from which these two are derived ...

If I give you my car for £10 then I've made a deal. Trump's deals are helping the Democrats (and his own mainstream public image), not helping him ful...

With massless particles the relevant equation is e = pc. p is mv, but with massless particles this is just v. So with massless particles it's e = vc. ...

Yeah, seems like Schumer and Pelosi have been taking advantage of that. All they need to do his convince him that it'll be popular and he'll go along ...

As if there was any doubt that all he wants is a PR win. He doesn't seem to care about policy at all.

So you're just defining "same substance" as "can interact"?

'Fraid I don't know what the original post (or study) was, so I don't know. Although I'd probably err on the side of caution and not allow anything th...

Damn elitist libruls, wanting answers to simple questions. What was the question anyway? I didn't read your post beyond that first sentence.

I believe the standard scientific view is that they are. One study by one guy with only two citations (both himself) isn't good evidence against this ...

Photon, gluon, and the hypothetical graviton.

What about massless point particles?

So, aside from being able to interact, what do two different things of the same substance have in common?

Isn't this cheating? You're defining two things as being of the same substance if they can interact. Or it could be that with this definition you're j...

Damn libruls.

QED. Monism it is.

"Substance" is a pretty nebulous concept, though. What does is mean to say that a photon and an electron are "made from" the same substance? What woul...

Yes it can. This is valid: 1. p 2. p ? p ? q 3. p ? q

I'll repeat (and add to) my previous explanation here: 1. Smith's belief that p is justified by r 2. p ? p ? q 3. From 1 and 2, Smith's belief that p ...

What do you mean by the justification being false? In Gettier's example, the justification is "Jones has at all times in the past within Smith's memor...

I used the search box for Hanover+dualism. But, yes, you supporting substance dualism was memorable. :)

I assume everyone who accepts the JTB account of knowledge feels the same way, else having both justification and truth would be redundant.

creative isn't even talking about justification. He's saying that Smith doesn't believe p ? q.

If you have a good reason to believe p and if p entails p ? q then you have a good reason to believe p ? q.

Seems so.

@"Hanover"?

It isn't irrelevant. Smith believes that p ? q is true, and p ? q is true. Therefore, Smith has a true belief.

I've done so numerous times. I'll repeat it again: 1. p 2. p ? p ? q 3. p ? q This is a valid argument. Therefore the rational person who believes 1 a...