creativesoul

Indeed. The trouble comes when those pontificating about Smith's thought/belief process conflate his belief that:((p v q) is true if...(insert belief ...

Charitable readings and all... Smith doesn't believe that Brown is in Barcelona. So Smith's thought/belief process - since it involves invoking an inc...

The mistake here is conflating knowledge of(justified true belief about) the rules of entailment/disjunction with believing a disjunction.

I ask the careful reader to compare the following... Again the pattern of oversimplifying Smith's believing a disjunction continues unabated, despite ...

I'm saying that belief that:((p v q) is true) is not equivalent to belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)). I'm saying that the way you've been acco...

No. When you combine the two statements into one monolith and talk about Smith's belief like you've done above, you must remember and properly take in...

Because p3 and C1 cannot be further reduced/simplified without losing the because p part. That is true belief on your part here and now. Smith has fal...

Salva veritate

This is interesting. I'm curious. How exactly have you come to differentiate Smith's argument from Gettiers? Furthermore, does it even make sense to s...

One of the two statements is believed. To state that one or the other is true is to believe that they both could be. It shows uncertainty where none e...

Using (p v q) as a means to represent Smith's belief is problematic. The content of Smith's thought/belief is precisely what's in question. Smith's be...

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if...(insert belief statement(s) regarding what makes this particular disjunctio...

Let's look at how modus ponens is correctly applied to Smith's belief... If Jones owns a Ford then either 'Jones owns a Ford' or 'Brown is in Barcelon...

Nothing at all unreasonable there. I would just note something that is not like Gettier Case II. Michael is talking about combining two separate belie...

The justification for Smith saying it, is the fact that there is no connection. "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is Smith's certain...

Believing that a disjunction follows from a belief is not equivalent to believing the disjunction. That's the problem. My argument shows it and dissol...

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if...(insert belief statement(s) regarding what makes this particular disjunctio...

A rational person doesn't believe statements if they do not know what the statement means. Smith is rational. Believing Q requires Smith's knowing wha...

Knowing what a disjunction means requires knowing what makes it true. You agree to this. So... Show where Gettier or your report of Smith's thought/be...

Take it from the top... I would concur. This is not always true. To be as precise as ordinary language allows:S must first arrive at a belief before w...

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if...(insert belief statement(s) regarding what makes this particular disjunctio...

Knowing what a disjunction means requires knowing what makes it true. Show where Gettier or your report of Smith's thought/belief process accounts for...

I've already refuted that attempt.

No. Believing Q, when Q is a disjunction deduced from believing P... p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if...(inser...

I agree that Smith knows what the disjunction means. Knowing what a disjunction means requires knowing what makes it true.

Rational people do not believe statements unless they know what they mean. Knowing what a disjunction means is to know what makes them true. You and G...

:-O I've little to no reason to continue this discussion. You deny a clearly missing premiss, and are attempting to brow beat me with man-made rules t...

Use a disjunction and put the argument in English terms... long form.

There's something missing. Do you not notice? "All men are mortal" is missing from the latter. p v q is true because p is missing from the former.

There you go again using simple beliefs and statements thereof... Irrelevant. Use a disjunction. Apply my formula. Show a problem with the result.

It bears on the discussion by virtue of pointing out that the two are not equivalent. Belief that:((p v q) is true) is not equivalent to belief that:(...

Your logic and/or some of the rules are wrong. Brace yourself. I've dissolved disjunction problems...

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if either (p) or (q) is true) C1. ((p v q) is true because (p))(from p1,p3) Ther...

Belief that:((p v q) is true) is not equivalent to belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)) Salva veritate

Rational people do not believe statements unless they know what they mean. Knowing what a disjunction means is to know what makes them true. You and G...

Your report of Smith's thought/belief process is utterly inadequate.

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if either (p) or (q) is true) C1. ((p v q) is true because (p))(from p1,p3)

Rational people do not believe statements unless they know what they mean. Knowing what a disjunction means is to know what makes them true. You and G...

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if either (p) or (q) is true) C1. ((p v q) is true because (p))(from p1,p3) Eleg...

Smith believes Jones owns a Ford. Smith believes that the statement 'Jones owns a Ford' is true. Smith believes the disjunction 'Jones owns a Ford or ...

Take it from the top... I would concur. This is not always true. To be as precise as ordinary language allows:S must first arrive at a belief before w...

I'm arguing that your notion(and Gettier's) regarding what counts as believing Q, when Q is a disjunction deduced from believing P is utterly inadequa...

Your report upon Smith's thought/belief process is not equivalent to Smith's thought/belief process. p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) ...

Modus ponens doesn't help your report of Smith's belief. 1 is false and you know it. So, it is not the case that if 1 is true and 2 is true then 3 is ...

Then why keep calling (g), (h), and (i) "true"?

Being the result of a valid inference isn't equivalent to being true.

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) That's where you get. 3 in the quote above doesn't follow from p2 unless by "true" you mean being the...

Are you sure you want to argue this? X-)

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) That's where you get. It doesn't make Q true. It makes Q the conclusion of a valid inference.

You mean this??? Gratuitous assertions won't do at this juncture Michael. I've detailed exactly what believing any and all Q's requires when Q is a di...