creativesoul

We know how. Correlations drawn between(amongst other things) those particular noises or marks and the term/word "utterance" by a plurality of people ...

This and the other... good threads Banno. <raised beer mug>

Maybe. The core issue is the stark difference between our notions of "belief". Your last reply shows a few more as well. While I agree with rejecting ...

Perhaps, but it does invoke an extra entity.

That skirts the key question here, does it not? Before we can make any sense of what counts as a moral fact, we must already have some criterion for w...

That does not make much sense to me. What sort of barriers are you referring to? Occam's razor is commonly used against the explanation "God did it".

That puts it very lightly, to say the least. It looks to me to be a very serious foundational problem. If we think about it in terms of explanatory po...

It's not just about aesthetics. It's about methodological approach. It's about warrant. It's about further discriminating between competing explanatio...

Occam's razor is about reducing the likelihood for error. The fewest unprovable assumptions is best. The fewest entities is best. The hitch seems to h...

Indeed. Individual beliefs are picked out of an ongoing process. As a result, as with events, we have to draw a line somewhere. I'm showing that the c...

I've neither stated that, nor does anything I've claimed only lead to saying that. I'm pointing out that you're treating propositions as though they a...

Are you sure? It seems that there are several commonly used notions of "belief". They are not on equal footing. I think it plain to see that there doe...

I'm charging you and convention with getting S's belief wrong. I'm saying that you're treating S's belief as though it is equivalent to the propositio...

The proposition "Michael was not born in Germany" is equivalent to neither S's belief about that particular proposition nor S's belief about your birt...

If that does not convince you, nothing will... It's been fun. Hate to run, but have a real, life changing emergency situation to deal with. No worries...

Joe believes you were born in Croatia. Dan believes you were born in Ireland. Veronica believes you were born in Utah. Kevin believes you were born in...

As far as I know, the rights to free speech end when that speech is being used to defraud the United States of America.

Let's consider a situation where we have five different people who believe that you were born in five different places. None of these people believe t...

"Michael was not born in Germany." "Michael was not born in Germany, because he was born in France." According to the argument you offered earlier, wh...

I'm not familiar enough with Searle's notion to know whether or not I agree with it. I've been watching Searle's lectures though. My own personal noti...

Nor need I. What I have shown is that "Michael was not born in Germany" is not equivalent to believing that Michael was not born in Germany because he...

Right. Well, no. In order for my argument to work, I need to show that what you're claiming is S's belief is not equivalent to S's belief and that the...

I'm not following this. Do you take issue with how I used the term "ought"? Is that the basis of your objection?

What is the standard or criterion you're using in order to say that something counts as a "moral fact?" It is a fact that if I promise to plant you a ...

S is justified in believing that you were born in France. We can validly infer/deduce that you were not born in Germany based upon knowing that you ca...

We're in agreement. Here you've mistaken your report of my mental ongoings with my mental ongoings. Your objections are replete with enemies of your o...

If I promise to plant you a rose garden on Sunday, then on Monday there ought be a rose garden. Is this correct? Is it a moral claim? Seems to me that...

It seems to me that 3 is more accurately rendered as... S would be justified in believing that you were not born in Germany because you were born in F...

S's belief is that you were not born in Germany because you were born in France. My 'argument' is that S believes that you were not born in Germany be...

S's belief is not just that you were not born in Germany. It is that you were not born in Germany because you were born in France. That is not true.

I do not see an issue here different from Case II. If you were not born in Germany for any other reason than being born in France, then S's belief wou...

The cottage cases are a different matter altogether. They do not follow and/or 'attack' the S knows that P iff... formulations that Gettier does. That...

Indeed. My issue is not with entailment. As you may remember, I've been grappling with how to best come to terms with Gettier for several years now, o...

Excellent reply! Well, aside from the condescending petty personal remarks and focusing upon irrelevancy that you seem so fond of. Moving on... Since ...

Self-contradiction. Either it's not a valid deduction or valid deductions do not preserve truth. The premisses were both false. The preservation of tr...

If Gettier is guilty of not properly taking account of Smith's belief, if Smith's belief was not equivalent to the propositions Gettier targeted, then...

What's directly below is taken from Gettier's paper. It's worth mentioning here after the recent nonsense... I agree with the first point. Here I disa...

So, your argument boils down to saying that "there is a cow in the field" is justified because you equivocate and/or abuse the term "valid". Nice.

Gibberish. One the one hand, you claim there is no inference, deduction, or conclusion possible between mistaking cloth for cow and the assertion "the...

Still have not answered the question. How does the farmer validly deduce/infer/conclude "there is a cow in the field" from mistaking cloth for cow(fro...

I've made several accompanied by subsequent argument. You've chosen to neglect all that. The latest point was that you could not back up your claims a...

S begins with a case of mistaking cloth for cow. Cases of mistaken identity do not make for solid, sufficient, and/or otherwise adequate ground from w...

We could say it. It would not make it so. Belief that there is a cow does not follow from mistaking cloth for cow.

I'm thinking that language less creatures beliefs are ineffable, by them or by us. We can talk about them though, so language less belief may not coun...

I take it that you do not have a position on the matter then. Mine has been made clear. In the cottage cases, the target belief is not justified as a ...

Are you claiming that the farmer's belief that there is a cow in the field justified? If you're not, then we're in agreement. If you are then now you ...

I agree that Smith's belief was justified. I deny that it was true, because I deny that the target proposition/disjunction is equivalent to Smith's be...

Mistaking that particular cloth for a cow is to believe that that cloth is a cow. That's the beginning of this particular farmer's thought and/or beli...

Do you agree that at time t1, this particular farmer looked out into a particular field at a particular piece of cloth and mistook it for a cow?

Whose distinction is a categorical error?