creativesoul

I understand disjunctions just fine. You do not seem to understand irrelevance.

Can I get paid yet??? 8-)

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 we can say that S is just...

From the first page... No. You're missing the point. Smith - himself - would not form belief about Brown's location. One cannot know they are ignorant...

So, I check in on the refutation thread and low and behold it says that it had been merged into here and/or moved to here... Hmmm... Must take more ti...

A sincere speaker believes what s/he says. Sincerity is the hallmark of honesty. An honest argument starts out with belief. Premisses presuppose their...

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p)) p3. ((p v q) is true if...( )) C1. ((p v q) is true because(insert belief statement(s) corresponding ...

And it's an argument from insincerity. Want me to prove that for you?

You're missing a few steps...

Not all syllogisms are valid

Set it all out Michael... Show me don't tell me.

The rational and wise person knows that validity is insufficient for truth.

Invalid form

It also sheds light upon what it actually takes to believe a disjunction, as compared/contrasted to just believing that it follows from some belief or...

It shows us something about the difference between propositions and belief(s) as well. Case II was a thorn in the side of many folk due to the fact th...

There's quite a bit to consider here regarding the sheer scope of application that this refutation has for philosophy on a whole. Aside from the cotta...

I would hope that anyone voting 'no' would would bear the burden of valid objection.

pm me Srap...

The same as the difference between a conclusion and an inference rule?

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...

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) Tha...

True premisses and valid form cannot yield false conclusions. False premisses and valid form cannot yield true conclusions. Gettier's Case II has Smit...

Can't get to 3 from 1 and 2. Can't get to 6 from 4 and 5. Missing premiss in both.

Srap, there is another problem at hand. Belief and propositions are not equivalent.

Michael I've made that case. Entailment doesn't matter. p1 and p2 exhaust everything Gettier says until his conclusion that Smith believes (p v q). He...

Looks like a problem with entailment. Truth conditions matter.

Case one specifies Smith's belief. Gettier refers to them as a "conjunctive proposition".

By the way, the argument from illusion is untenable.

It all starts with thought/belief Srap... We get that wrong and we get something or other wrong about everything ever spoken and/or written.

Again. Don't see the problem. If it is a barn, then his belief is true. If it is not, then his belief is false. That one's quite a stretch on the imag...

No, he really does...

That one's wrong too! :P

I was most certainly wrong regarding the above... X-) I stand by all the rest. Gettier most certainly attributes belief that Jones owns a Ford to Smit...

I don't know though. On second thought, S believed that that was a sheep. It wasn't.

Yeah. I vaguely remember reading something like this before... and barns. Never really gave it much thought though. Today's the day... It doesn't foll...

I'm not sure where I went 'wrong'... Seriously. Show me.

X-) I'm not even sure what that means Srap. I don't remember ever saying that. False belief does not make a good starting point...

More specifically, do they all follow Gettier's above formulation and if so, do all the Q's involve disjunction?

Do they all involve disjunction?

The disconnect happens between P and Q. Are there any other example besides Gettier's that place JTB under suspicion?

The pattern? Hmmm... Doesn't that involve p's being believed with strong ground but false? Each and every time?

And yeah... 6 immediately jumped out at me.

I have an unconventional view regarding that. Does that surprise you?

That's all about justificatory ground.

Continue...

I'm saying that that account is inadequate.

Salva veritate

No. I've said nothing about what Smith does not believe.