creativesoul

Works fine. Not a Gettier case though.

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) Fil...

Charming.

I'm not misreading. I'm strongly asserting that 1 and 2 are not always adequate for believing Q. In Case II, another deduction is necessary for arrivi...

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...

Just in case inquiring minds want to know...

Gratuitous assertions won't do at this juncture in the discussion. I'll convince anyone and everyone who is capable of following along. If it's a Gett...

Belief that:((p v q) is true) is inferred from belief that:((p v q) is true because (p) is true) which is inferred from his belief that:((p) is true),...

Perhaps maybe it simply place certain kinds of entailment under scrutiny. As you say, each thought/belief has it's own set of truth conditions(althoug...

That's not what Gettier sets out.

I'm not ignoring your last post. Much of it has been addressed. None-the-less, I plan on attending to it... ;)

Srap I'm working on a response to all sorts of other stuff you've mentioned here. Now seems a good time to get into that stuff. I mean, since I've fin...

That was supposed to adequately represent my argument below. It doesn't. p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p))(from a) p3. ((p v q) is true...

Two completely different kinds of description Michael. The former argument represent Smith's thought/belief process as Gettier sets it out. The latter...

No, it's not the same as Gettier's case. First of all, it does not follow from the fact that Y follows from X that Y is true. That's not what Gettier ...

Ah... I find it unacceptable to cheer about the fall of anyone. That is not to say that the world would not be a better place if lots of folk fell. Ra...

That may turn out to be true...

You've put forth a process that does not follow Gettier's description of Smith's.

Gettier set the goal posts. You're moving them. I set them out in painstaking detail.

That doesn't follow from Gettier's description of Smith's thought/belief processes Michael. Given exactly what Gettier sets out, I have constructed an...

No, it's not two different things that Smith believes. I've already said that that objection is irrelevant. I suppose that charge carries a burden wit...

That's not a fact. Belief that:((p v q) is true) is utterly inadequate. I've already argued for this without subsequent refutation... Smith's belief t...

Alright. I know that this is a common approach to the Gettier problem. I reject it as irrelevant. That claim carries with it a justificatory burden. I...

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

The last comment here reminds me of Davidson... I understand that the mainstream view focuses upon justification. Smith's belief, as I've just set it ...

Nothing Gettier states warrants such talk about Smith's belief.

All for the same reasons, as the argument clearly shows, and Gettier clearly states... p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p))(from a) p3. ((...

The exclusive/inclusive distinction is irrelevant here. Smith, given what he believes, posits all three q's as a means to create a proposition, not as...

I just showed how that works...

p1. ((p) is true) p2. ((p v q) follows from (p))(from a) p3. ((p v q) is true if either (p) or (q) is true)(from a,b) C1. ((q) is not true)(from p1,p3...

What do you think about 'em?

((q) is not true)

Those are not relevant.

Smith's belief that: ((p v q) is true because (p) is true) is inferred from his belief that: ((p) is true), ((p v q) follows from p), ((p v q) is true...

Which part of that isn't necessary?

How else does one arrive at belief that: ((p v q) is true)?

belief that: ((p v q) is true)

Which part of that isn't necessary?

How else does one arrive at belief that: ((p v q) is true)?

Smith's belief that: ((p v q) is true because (p) is true) is inferred from his belief that: ((p) is true), ((p v q) follows from p), ((p v q) is true...

Here's the thing... What Gettier claims that Smith does requires precisely what I've just set out.

Randomly picked locations. Smith, of course, has no idea where Brown is. You figure Smith doesn't know that? :-} Why such resistance Srap?

Here is Smith's thought/belief process, in the timeline Gettier sets out. In other words, here is the imagining that Gettier asks the reader to perfor...

That has been refuted.

Granting that the second Gettier case has been effectively dissolved, which may still be in question for some, does the fact that everyone has been fo...

So, Smith has false belief. It is not the case that (p v q) is true because (p) is true. Why ought the justification aspect matter here? :-|

What else could such an imagining consist of if not exactly what I've painstakingly set out in such excruciating detail? Smith's belief that: ((p v q)...

For the life me, I think that that nails the lid down on the coffin of case II.

Not following Srap... what sentence?

That is precisely what needs a thorough unpacking. That is most certainly relevant. That IS Smith's belief that: ((p v q) is true because (p) is true)...