creativesoul

Smith cannot believe that both p and q could be true.

That's an oversimplification. See my last post above that sums up my notion of what Smith's belief that (p v q) is true consists in.

Didn't you earlier claim that g, h, and i were all true? :(

Interesting mischaracterization... If one believes that either this(p) or that(q) is true, then one believes that both cannot be. Believing that (p v ...

You see what's happening here regarding the clear distinction being drawn between believing that a proposition(p v q) is validly inferred, and believi...

What would change if, say, Jones still owned a Ford? It would still be the case that Smith has validly inferred (p v q). Both p and q would be true. S...

If one believes that either this(p) or that(q) is true, then one believes that both cannot be. That is not the case with Smith.

Do you still hold that every proposition has it's own unique truth conditions such that no two propositions have the same truth conditions?

Point taken. I would only note that the conversation focused upon what it would take in order for justification to be preserved from p to (p v q).

If one believes that either this(p) or that(q) is true, then one believes that both cannot be. The only way for that to be the case is when and if the...

The former is about the same fact, and it consists entirely in/of statements of belief about that fact. The latter is about different facts and does n...

Can I surmise that each of these same propositions is about the same states of affairs?

That would be clearly wrong. I agree that believing a disjunction is true is not equivalent to believing that it follows from p. That is precisely my ...

He believes that they're all valid inferences. Belief that (p v q) follows from p is knowing that if either p or q is true then so too is (p v q). Tha...

No! This is an opportune reminder... Allow me to hold a mirror up for you Srap. His premiss works from an utterly inadequate notion of belief that (p ...

But I have shown why it matters. Assuming sincerity in speech, statements are statements of belief. Smith's lack of belief in Q shows that his belief ...

So are propositions equivalent to belief?

You see what's happening here regarding the clear distinction being drawn between believing that a proposition is validly inferred, and believing that...

Disjunctions are unique. (g), (h), and (i) all consist of (f) and different statements about Brown's location. None of those statements (Q's) are beli...

I do not accept Gettier's notion of belief. I've said that from the beginning. Our discussion allows those differences to show themselves. The formula...

You think/believe that every proposition has it's own unique set of truth conditions?

Regarding the difference between being called 'true' as a result of being the conclusion of a valid inference and being true, I expressed suspicion of...

I would not claim that all valid inference is justified by virtue of being valid. Disjunctions are unique. (g), (h), and (i) all consist of (f) and di...

Well, the theory of truth one works with is at hand, regardless of whether or not that is currently the focus of discussion. However, I am teasing out...

I would say that that would be the case if, and only if, P and Q have the same truth conditions.

What makes the following claims true? "1 is true and 2 is true" "3 is false and 4 is false" "5 is false and 6 is true" "2 follows from 1" "4 follows f...

The position you're arguing for hinges upon the above. I appreciate the time and effort that you put into the posts here Michael. However, it is much ...

Smith's justification for (f) is all relevant to (f). Smith's inferring (g), (h), and (i) from (f) has nothing to do with the justification for (f). T...

So then, let's say that Smith is just a regular joe, and says with unshakable certainty "Well, either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" even...

Smith believes that f is true. Smith knows that g, h, and i follow from f as per the rules of correct inference. Therefore, Smith knows that g, h, and...

That makes no sense at all. Either an inference is not inferred, or being inferred doesn't count as being an inference. What follows below is self-con...

Believing that 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' is true, if based upon belief that 'Jones owns a Ford', is knowledge that if either...

Where's the argument? Does it make sense to say that "London is the capital city of England or I am a woman" is an invalid conclusion?

So, conclusions aren't valid?

Ah. By definitional fiat. I'll grant it. So then, propositions are not inferred?

Smith has a justified true belief that g, h, and i follow from f - not in g, h, and i.

So, you're saying that g, h, and i follow from f according to the rules of correct inference but they are not valid? Hows that work?

Only if Smith knows that f is true would he know that g, h, and i are true.

No. Smith believes that f is true. Smith knows that g, h, and i follow from f as per the rules of correct inference. Therefore, Smith knows that g, h,...

He doesn't take it into proper account.

Smith knows the rules of correct inference. Gettier doesn't take that into account.

No. He knows that (p v q) is valid.

He knows the rules of correct inference. So, he knows that (p v q) follows from p, he believes that p is true, and so he knows that if p is true, then...

I revisited your explanation Michael. I would prefer using Gettier's case. Your case has significant differences. My claim is that Smith's belief that...

I've dissolved this Gettier case. Let's look, once again, at Gettier's set up... It is here that it would behoove us all to pause a moment and give th...

Fair enough Srap. I'm making quite the claim, aren't I? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I like that, and ought honor it. I'm working...

My apologies to all the participants for a reply of mine on the first page... I mean, upon re-reading the thread as a means to follow my own train of ...

The reasons that p is justified are irrelevant to the the case I'm making. The issue is what belief that (p v q) requires in order for it to even form...

I'm not following you Srap. Remember Gettier??? It's really rather simple when you think about it. Lose the logic talk for a moment, for that is preci...

Of course. He must in order to believe that (p v q) based upon belief that p and the rules of correct inference. Otherwise, he doesn't derive the disj...