You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

creativesoul

Comments

Hey Pneum! When you have time. Read the following carefully... It is where I'm at in all this. Still honing it. p3 needs left alone. It's not an argum...
September 16, 2017 at 20:32
Gettier's mistake is conflating knowledge of the rules of entailment/disjunction with belief. Believing that (g), (h), and (i) are entailed by (f) is ...
September 16, 2017 at 04:47
Indeed. Well put. That is precisely one point I've been making. Here's the thing... Gettier, and evidently many others want to say that Smith can get ...
September 16, 2017 at 02:52
When you have time. Read the following carefully... It is where I'm at in all this. Still honing it. p3 needs left alone. It's not an argument per se,...
September 16, 2017 at 02:35
When you have time. Read the following carefully... It is where I'm at in all this. Still honing it. p3 needs left alone. It's not an argument per se,...
September 15, 2017 at 16:51
Modus ponens cannot account for the thought/belief process required for arriving at believing Q when Q is a disjunction deduced from P.
September 15, 2017 at 16:46
It is worth noting that Michael's position necessarily presupposes that S's believing Q, when Q is a disjunction derived from believing P, not only do...
September 15, 2017 at 03:25
This is quite simply not true. We can clearly see for ourselves that Gettier attributes belief that p to Smith. The formula begins with S's believing ...
September 15, 2017 at 03:03
Just for the record. I do hold, and I am arguing that Smith believes Q. C1 exhausts believing Q. Salva veritate
September 15, 2017 at 02:52
The whole of Western philosophy has gotten thought/belief wrong. The typical belief that approach doesn't draw and maintain the crucial distinction be...
September 15, 2017 at 02:49
Here's the underlying issue folks... Not all Q's are arrived at by virtue of one deduction. The astute reader will note that almost all of Michael's c...
September 15, 2017 at 02:29
Believing is obviously different than accepting. Offering Gettier the benefit of the doubt, we must assume that Gettier saw it that way as well, other...
September 15, 2017 at 02:10
By the way, creative does have a position regarding justification. However, I've found good reason to not let the notion get in the way. That's part o...
September 15, 2017 at 02:02
Gettier sets that out himself. So... What does that consist in/of? That's the question at hand. I say that it doesn't include believing Q. Gettier see...
September 15, 2017 at 01:55
Alright, let's find agreement... Smith believes P, deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result... Agreed?
September 15, 2017 at 01:21
I need not refute that. It's irrelevant 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 ...
September 14, 2017 at 16:21
I would concur. This is not always true. To be as precise as ordinary language allows:S must first arrive at a belief before we can say that S is just...
September 14, 2017 at 16:20
Bewitched... Start at the top...
September 14, 2017 at 16:18
Fill it out with any and all disjunction deduced from belief that ((p) is true)... It's a proof, and you know it. Fill it out, or show what step is no...
September 14, 2017 at 16:13
When we're talking about thought/belief that is as complex as belief that:((p v q) follows from (p)), our account and/or report thereof had better wel...
September 14, 2017 at 16:07
Use a disjunction. In Case II, Q is a disjunction. Gettier claims that Smith believes that:((p v q) is true). Belief that:((p v q) is true) is the aim...
September 14, 2017 at 16:05
The Merrillian Lie-Trap 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 th...
September 14, 2017 at 05:22
When we're talking about thought/belief that is as complex as belief that:((p v q) follows from (p)), our account and/or report thereof had better wel...
September 14, 2017 at 05:12
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...
September 14, 2017 at 04:57
This is also not like Case II. With regard to my argument. I'm not ignoring it. I've rendered it inadequate. Belief that ((p v q) is true because (p))...
September 14, 2017 at 03:12
So earlier Michael presented a sample of an actual case of deducing (p v q) from p. 1. London is the capital city of England or pigs can fly 2. London...
September 14, 2017 at 03:02
An astute reader will take note of the fact that that solution further discriminates between knowing what truth conditions are for a disjunction and b...
September 14, 2017 at 01:52
This covers them all 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 ...
September 13, 2017 at 10:43
As a result of...
September 13, 2017 at 10:35
I would concur. This is not always true. To be as precise as ordinary language allows:S must first arrive at a belief before we can say that S is just...
September 13, 2017 at 10:32
Fill it out.
September 13, 2017 at 10:31
Are you claiming that there is/are no other truth condition(s) and/or justificatory ground for your belief that John is a man? Can I get paid yet? Sta...
September 13, 2017 at 10:24
Follow Gettier's formula and stop just prior to the conclusion. You'll be at p2 Fill it out. p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) The abov...
September 13, 2017 at 09:56
Do you not grasp the differences in complexity? Look at the notation.
September 13, 2017 at 09:54
False premisses and an invalid form/inference can get you there. So what? It's irrelevant to the argument being made and you know it.
September 13, 2017 at 09:51
Fill it out... Follow Gettier's formula, and you'll find yourself at p2
September 13, 2017 at 09:37
I know how strong that argument is and I perfectly understand it's scope of application.
September 13, 2017 at 09:33
Start from the top...
September 13, 2017 at 09:29
If you accept everything up to the end, then you accept that as well, or you don't understand it. I'm certain that you understand it.
September 13, 2017 at 09:28
Prior to language comes belief. Belief presupposes it's own truth. Therefore, truth begins in thought/belief formation that happens prior to language ...
September 13, 2017 at 09:25
Take it from the top...
September 13, 2017 at 09:09
I would concur. This is not always true. To be as precise as ordinary language allows:S must first arrive at a belief before we can say that S is just...
September 13, 2017 at 09:08
Start at the top...
September 13, 2017 at 09:04
p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if...(insert appropriate belief statement(s) about truth condition(s)) C1. ((p v...
September 13, 2017 at 09:04
Here we go... Brace yourself Michael...
September 13, 2017 at 08:57
You've been proofed.
September 13, 2017 at 08:56
If what you're saying doesn't fill it out, or cannot fill it out properly... Refute the argument. Start at the top.
September 13, 2017 at 08:55
There is no such belief. I've shown the thought/belief process. Fill it out.
September 13, 2017 at 08:54
Take it from the top...
September 13, 2017 at 08:52
Take it from the top...
September 13, 2017 at 08:48