Michael

It doesn't make sense to say "I believe that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona because Jones owns a Ford but I don't believe that Jones owns ...

I think I've bought 1 book in the last 8 years, and that was only so that I had something to read on the plane.

It's really strange that it matters. Ideally the judges wouldn't make political decisions, just correctly interpret the Constitution. Shame life doesn...

I think that depends on how many (more) Supreme Court justices Trump gets to pick.

But it isn't just about Hillary and Trump. It's about the whole country. Do you think that the U.S is better off under Trump than it would have been u...

I don't believe you.

He wasn't sent to jail for the Hillary thing. He had his bail revoked for the Hillary thing. He was sent to jail for the fraud conviction.

No it doesn't. If you believe that p ? q ? p then you believe that p ? q. It doesn't make sense to say "I believe that Donald Trump is the President b...

You're misreading. Let's replace the terms with a real example: Smith believes that Max is a bachelor, Max being a bachelor entails that Max is a man,...

Yes. I have simply been told by a person I trust that John is a bachelor. If it would make it a better example, let's use a gender-neutral name like "...

It isn't. If the conclusion is true and if I believe that the conclusion is true then I have a true belief. It doesn't matter if I believe it to be tr...

I believe that John is a bachelor. I believe that "John is a bachelor" is true. I believe that "John is a man" follows from "John is a bachelor". I be...

We've gone over this countless times. C2. p ? q (from C1) This is the true belief.

Then you don't understand disjunctions. If you understand disjunctions (and if you believe that London is the capital city of England) then you will b...

You're deflecting. Which of those do you believe to be true and which do you believe to be false?

Then tell me which of these you believe to be true and which you believe to be false: 1. London is the capital city of England or pigs can fly 2. Lond...

He doesn't need to form a belief about Brown's location to believe that "Jones owns a Ford or Smith is in Barcelona" is true. He only needs to believe...

This discussion was merged into Gettier's Case II Is Bewitchment

Nobody is saying that the conclusion is true because the argument is valid. There are two different parts to this scenario. The argument is valid and ...

You are quite simply wrong. It's modus ponens.

Yes they can. 1. If my name is Susan then I am a man 2. My name is Susan 3. Therefore, I am a man False premises, true conclusion. Yes you can. They'r...

However, the above might not even be relevant to the particular issue at hand. It could be that your argument conflates. To explain this, consider the...

But your argument rests on your own truth table in which there are three options. You're saying that if p is false (or true) and if q doesn't have a t...

Although actually there's also Bochvar's internal three-valued logic which has a different truth table to ?ukasiewicz's, and has a conjunction of this...

So not having a truth value is the third option. If we have the conjunction p ? q and if p is false and q doesn't have a truth value then the conjunct...

I addressed this mistake here.

This is a valid argument: 1. p 2. p ? p ? q 3. p ? q Therefore the rational person who believes 1 and 2 will also believe 3. Consider: 4. Socrates is ...

It seems to me that you're making two mistakes. The first is in thinking that the following is an exhaustive account of Smith's beliefs: 1. p 2. p ? p...

I've addressed your confusion here. Nobody is saying that validity is sufficient for truth. Validity is one thing and truth is another. I've provided ...

If he believes that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true because Jones owns a Ford then he believes that the pr...

You have a typo there. You meant "(g), for example, is entailed by (f)".

No it's not. It's another way of saying "P entails Q".

That's exactly Gettier's Case II.

See my last post.

Another example: A1. I believe that John is a bachelor A2. If John is a bachelor then John is a man A3. I believe that John is a man because he is a b...

Yes. So, how is Smith's belief any different to my belief? We both believe that some A is true because some B is true, even though our respective Bs a...

Gettier said that Smith believes that p ? q is true because he believes that p is true. He didn't say that Smith couldn't have believed that q is true...

No it isn't. He can get there via the belief that q is true. Or he can get their via trusting his friend who tells him that p ? q is true.

You're ignoring what I'm saying and repeating the same red herrings. I believe that Donald Trump is the President because he won the popular vote. Thi...

On the way to my belief that Donald Trump is the President I form the belief that Donald Trump is the President because he won the popular vote. But w...

? is because and ? is therefore. I believe it's just a way to reverse the order.

I'm not saying that they can be substituted. I'm saying that the latter entails the former. If I believe that Donald Trump is the President because he...

p ? q ? p

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I know they're not equivalent. But the latter entails the former, and the former is true. Smith has a true belief.

C2. p ? q is true (from C1). This is the Gettier case.

Heh, I can see how that could be misread. I was saying that the person who believes A but not what they recognise to follow from A is an idiot. I wasn...

They are if you're a rational person. How can you believe A but not believe some B that you recognise to follow from it? You'd have to be an idiot.

You're misreading. 1. S believes P 2. S deduces Q from P 3. S believes Q 4, S is justified in believing P 5. S is justified in believing Q

Oh, an innuendo on sexual intercourse. How droll.