creativesoul

Are you saying that Smith's belief doesn't matter? :-|

That's the case regardless. Gettier wants to show that Smith arrives at JTB from a false p as a means of placing the notion of justification in questi...

Trump won't resign. He could be prosecuted then.

Smith gets to (g), (h), and (i) just fine. It's the step after, namely Smith's realizing the entailment, and accepting all three as true - as a result...

Aren't they? This is beginning to make Watergate look like a petty crime...

That is precisely why his questionable behaviours regarding all of the concerted attempts to distract and/or put an end to the investigation are of cr...

I'm also beginning to believe that Trump is not just a bullshitter. I mean, truth most certainly matters to one who's under the most invasive criminal...

To, me that makes perfect sense, although I do not have a good grasp upon logical notation, so if there's something incorrect about that aspect that i...

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...

There's another consideration at hand here. There's something at work - within our accounting for Smith's belief - that renders us unable to properly ...

Hey Srap. Interestingly enough, I am agreeing with Gettier, at least as far as the justification aspect goes, and as everyone will soon see - it is no...

Believing that 'either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' is true, if based upon belief that 'Jones owns a Ford' is true, and accepting the r...

I don't think the Trump example is an adequate comparison... I also do not think that "(p v q) is true" adequately explains Smith's belief. I'm saying...

Agreement is good. Understood. Invoking meaning could be helpful here, for you do not have to know whether p or q are true to know what makes (p v q) ...

I see it as knowing what makes (p v q) true.

And yes Srap, it pains me to be as deliberate as I have to be to set this out long-form. Usually "is true" is redundant.

I'm attempting to be as concise as possible with ordinary language.

Logicians... :-} ;)

My friend arrived at the same question Srap... Arrrgh! :P I do not know how else to describe it. Believing that 'either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is ...

Point taken.

Oh come on Srap. Natural language isn't shorthand for logical notation. It's quite the other way around, and if logic cannot take proper account of Sm...

Looks like truth is beginning to matter after all. For all those who aren't privy to the special prosecutor's case against Trump, it's still only a ma...

You're right. 2 is what matters. I've set out precisely what it takes. Gettier did not. The Gettier case annoys everyone since '63. That doesn't matte...

4 follows from 1, 2, and 3 as far as I can tell.

Yes, I know that you think that 2 is as far as we need to go, but it isn't. Since you objected to 4 on semantic grounds, and you hold that 2 is as far...

Smith's belief that (p v q) is true because p is true is false. Smith does not have a JTB to begin with. One cannot quite make the claim that Gettier ...

1.Smith knows that (p v q) is true if either p or q is true 2.Smith believes that (p v q) is true. 3.Smith does not believe that q is true. 4.Smith be...

The justification is irrelevant. Smith's belief is false. (p v q) is not true because p is.

I'm not talking about his belief that p. That should be clear. 1.Smith knows that (p v q) is true if either p or q is true 2.Smith believes that (p v ...

That's what Gettier tries to do Srap. It neglects to take the fact that Smith knows the truth conditions of (p v q) and doesn't believe q.

If one knows what Smith knows, then one can believe (p v q) is true for one of only two possible reasons. Either (p v q) is true because p is true or ...

So, it's justified false belief? My point is that Gettier's notion of Smith's belief is too simplistic. An old friend of mine who's much more knowledg...

1.Smith knows that (p v q) is true if either p or q is true 2.Smith believes that (p v q) is true. 3.Smith does not believe that q is true. 4.Smith be...

I'm not sure what you're trying to flesh out Michael. It's crystal clear. Here it is again in long-form... Believing that 'either Jones owns a Ford or...

It's not that simple Srap Believing that (p v q) is true, if based upon belief that p, and accepting the rules of correct inference, requires knowing ...

I wrote this... ...not this...

I cannot conflate things that I've not written Michael.

Smith believes that (p v q) is true because p is true. Smith holds false belief.

You're not granting Smith much cognitive ability. I am for it's required in order to arrive at (p v q) is true in the way Gettier sets out... Believin...

Are you claiming that Smith does not believe that (p v q) is true because p is?

Are you sure??? Believing that (p v q) is true, if based upon belief that p, and accepting the rules of correct inference, requires knowing that if p ...

Smith believes that (p v q) is true because p is true. Smith is wrong. (p v q) is true because q is true.

Smith's knowing that if p or q is true, then so too is (p v q) and still believing that (p v q) is true despite not believing any of the Q's, is for S...

Believing that (p v q) is true, if based upon belief that p, and accepting the rules of correct inference, requires knowing that if p or q is true the...

So that's where you think I'm conflating. I agree with what you've said here, aside from the charge... I'm setting out what is required in order to ev...

I want to set out the argument in long form, I suppose. Particularly, I want to see the missing premisses from belief that p to belief that (p v q).

Point taken. We're getting back into your territory... My case cannot be made in those terms. I've removed the bit regarding inclusive/exclusive... Be...

He needs to believe that both could be. Smith cannot believe that both p and q could be true, for the reasons I've been giving.

No, he cannot. Gettier claims that Smith is totally ignorant about Brown's location. That is a problem for the inclusive notion. Smith does not believ...

I'm not even sure what you're talking about when you say it's wrong... again. Quote me and argue against the parts you say are wrong.