Regarding cases of mistaken identity...

Gazing upon a field, seeing a piece of cloth, and believing it to be a cow does not entail "there is a cow in the field". It is also not the same belief. The farmer first believed that that particular piece of cloth was a cow.<----That's the beginning of an accurate analysis of this farmer's belief. That belief grounds this farmer's subsequent thought. It also marks the end of our analysis. Belief that there is a cow in the field does not follow from belief that a piece of cloth is a cow.

No more wondering whether or not that farmer's belief is justified.

They concern particular perceptual beliefs. — neomac

This presupposes that there is more than one kind of belief. I find that quite germane to the topic, given the B aspect.

The target proposition in the farmer example is "There is a cow in the field" and the story tells us that there is a cow in the field. How is that false? However, it is true that the farmer is not justified in believing it... — Ludwig V

Yes. My mistake there. I was irritated at the time by another posters' hubris, very tired, and was not thinking clearly. The target propositions are true, not false. The beliefs are all false, not true. The propositions are not equivalent to the beliefs. The basic point I'm making is that S's belief is not being properly taken into account by any Gettier case, and that's the fatal flaw of them all, despite the fact that there are remarkable differences between Gettier's paper and the cottage industry that followed.

...But Gettier has an argument that he is justified in believing it nonetheless, so you need to show that argument is invalid... — Ludwig V

That's not the only way to show how Gettier is mistaken. Gettier's logic is impeccable. However, an argument can be both impeccable and false. In Gettier's paper, the fatal flaw is treating Smith's beliefs as though they are equivalent to the naked propositions he discusses. They are not. I can and have shown how that is the case.

...You are advocating a version of the "no False Lemmas" reply, which I agree with. I'm not clear whether you agree with my argument for that reply and it would be interesting to know whether you agree or have a different argument to refute Gettier's argument. — Ludwig V

I'm not even sure that I understand the NFL objection. If my answer to Gettier cases counts as a version of the NFL, then it is by pure coincidence. I'll try to adequately summarize the individual cases in this post, because the crucial parts of my view have been sporadically littered throughout my replies here in a rather disparate looking fashion. Taking the cases one at a time should clear up any misunderstandings...



In Case I, Smith is justified in believing that he will get the job and he knows that he has ten coins in his pocket. Gettier uses this justified belief and the rules of entailment for Smith to go from "I will get the job and have ten coins in my pocket" to "the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job". Unbeknownst to Smith, another man also has ten coins in his pocket. That other man got the job. Smith did not. So... the claim is that if Smith was justified in believing P, and P entails Q, then Smith is justified in deducing Q from P and thus justified in believing Q. Q turned out to be true when treated as a naked proposition. Q is not a naked proposition. Q is Smith's belief. The difference between Q as a naked proposition and Q as Smith's belief is paramount. When Smith believed "the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job" he was thinking about himself and no one else! The fatal flaw of the case is Gettier's failing to keep in mind Smith's belief. Smith was not justified in believing anyone other than himself would get the job. Smith was not justified in believing anyone other than himself had ten coins in their pocket. Someone else had ten coins in their pocket and someone else got the job, contrary to Smith's belief. Smith's belief turned out to be false despite the fact that "the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job" turned out to be true when treated as a naked proposition. The truth conditions of Smith's belief do not match the truth conditions of the naked proposition. Thus, to treat Smith's belief as a naked proposition is to engage in an accounting malpractice of Smith's belief.


In Case II, Smith is justified in believing Jones owns a Ford. Gettier uses that and the rules of disjunction for Smith to go from Smith's belief that Jones owns a Ford to belief that either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona. Turns out that Jones does not own a Ford and Brown is in Barcelona, so again - like the first case - the disjunction is true when treated as a naked proposition/disjunction. The fatal flaw in that case is equal to the first case in that Gettier is misattributing belief to Smith by treating Smith's belief as a naked proposition when it is not. Smith believed that the disjunction was true because Jones owned a Ford. Gettier did not render Smith's belief that way. The disjunction was not true because Jones owned a Ford. Rather, it was true because Brown was in Barcelona. So, Smith's belief was false. Thus, putting Smith's belief in terms of P or Q is treating Smith's belief as a naked proposition. The truth conditions of the naked proposition are not equivalent to the truth conditions of Smith's belief. Hence, to treat Smith's belief as though it is a naked proposition is to engage in an accounting malpractice of Smith's belief.


The cottage industry repeats the accounting malpractice, but not quite in the same way as Gettier. Those cases do not follow the S knows that P formulation that Gettier addresses in his paper. Gettier gets Smith's belief right to begin with, but then conflates naked propositions/disjunctions with Smith's belief. The cottage cases begin by not getting S's belief right to start with. So, the critique/refutation for them is slightly different than the critique of Gettier's two cases. Gettier and the cottage industry all get S's belief wrong, they just go about it in different ways.


Belief that a piece of cloth is a cow does not entail "a cow is in the field". Belief that a barn facade is a barn does not entail "a barn is in the field". Belief that Clarabelle is Daisy does not entail "Daisy is in the field". Belief that a broken clock is working does not entail "it is two o'clock". Etc.

Correctly stating S's belief in the beginning marks the end of the cottage cases.

Gettier's two cases are both justified false belief. All of the cottage industry cases present true statements that do not follow from S's belief. No Gettier case offers an accurate account of S's belief.

I suggest you read my posts in this thread. I'm not interested in continuing discussion with you, given the recent history.

It is tempting to think that when a flaw has been found in a bad argument, it is not necessary to pursue the matter further. But there is more than one problem with Gettier cases, and the expectation that they either meet the definition criteria or they do not is another one; the target proposition is always partly right and partly wrong. — Ludwig V

The target proposition is always false, one of which the believer cannot possibly be justified in believing. The target proposition is always an accounting malpractice of S's belief.

Shedding light on that pulls the rug out from under the entire project.

Which problem escapes this?

That particular farmer sees that particular piece of cloth in that particular field at that particular time, and mistakenly believes at that particular moment in time that that particular piece of cloth in that particular field is a cow or a sheep(which one does not matter).

Are you denying this?
— creativesoul

Read what has already been written and ye shall be enlightened:

He believed (erroneously) that he was looking at a cow, when he was actually looking at a piece of cloth.
— Janus — Janus

So, he was looking at a piece of cloth, believed that he was looking at a cow, but did not believe that that piece of cloth was a cow?

:roll:

There is no puzzle there of the kind that you seem to be attempting to nurture by virtue (or vice) of ambiguous usage of language (that is by substituting what we might say about the farmer's belief for how he would put his belief into words, to arrive at an absurd paradox, "believing that a piece of cloth is a cow", that might engender the illusion that it is of some significance, when it really is not). — Janus

It is humanly impossible to knowingly hold false belief. The farmer's belief is false. False belief cannot be true. The farmer reports a belief that can be true. The farmer is mistaken about his own belief.

Pace Moore...

We can know that a farmer believes that a piece of cloth is a cow or sheep even though the farmer cannot.

The rhetoric is trite.

The farmer certainly did not believe that a piece of cloth was a cow; how could he, since he didn't know it was a piece of cloth, and if he had known it was a piece of cloth, then how could he believe it to be a cow? He believed (erroneously) that he was looking at a cow, when he was actually looking at a piece of cloth. — Janus

We cross posted. My last post did not take the above into consideration.

That particular farmer sees that particular piece of cloth in that particular field at that particular time, and mistakenly believes at that particular moment in time that that particular piece of cloth in that particular field is a cow or a sheep(which one does not matter).

Are you denying this?

The problem is basic. The farmer believes that a piece of cloth is a sheep. That belief is false. False belief cannot be true. The farmer, should they openly assert that they believe a sheep is in the field, would be asserting a belief that can be true. False belief cannot be true. The farmer's belief is false. "There is a sheep in the field" can be true. The farmer's belief cannot. The farmer's belief cannot be "there is a sheep in the field". The farmer is mistaken about their own belief, unbeknownst to themselves.

This all makes perfect sense when we keep in mind that we cannot knowingly hold false belief. The farmer believed that a piece of cloth was a sheep.

There certainly seems to be a problem about the farmer’s belief that a piece of cloth is a cow. You seem to be assuming that in reporting the farmer’s beliefs, you need to use words that he would have done, and he certainly wouldn’t have said that a piece of cloth was in the field. — Ludwig V

I'm afraid I've been unclear.

I'm arguing against using words that the farmer would have used at the time, for he did not know that he believed a piece of cloth was a cow... pace Moore's paradox. Nevertheless, the farmer most certainly believed that a piece of cloth was a cow.

I'm further bringing to light that the farmer's belief does not entail belief that a cow is in the field. So, the farmer, if they inferred there was a cow in the field from their belief that a piece of cloth was a cow, made an invalid inference. The same is true of an author who claims the farmer concluded that a cow was in the field from belief that a piece of cloth was a cow.

My last post explained all the problems with attributing belief that could be true to the farmer - who had false belief. We know that. The farmer does not.

If the farmer claims to believe that a cow is in the field, they are wrong about the content of their own belief.( this may tie into things you've said) They are mistaken in their own report. That particular belief - the one reported by the farmer at the time - is one that could be true. The farmer's belief cannot. The farmer does not know that he believes a piece of cloth is a cow. He is mistaken about his own belief. Any author who then uses what the farmer would claim at that time is following the farmer off the cliff, so to speak. It's worse for the storyteller though, for we all know that the farmer does not know that they believe a piece of cloth is a cow. Using the farmer's self report as though it is accurate when it is not perpetuates the farmer's own mistake(repeat a belief that the farmer could not have) and prove oneself to have not learned the lesson from Moore.

Each and every case is an accounting malpractice.

That's the end of all the hoopla. That's it. It's that simple.

...psychiatry definitely does have an aura of evilness about it which is hard to define. — introbert

History is chock full of examples, whether fact or fiction, about people using other people's thoughts and beliefs against them. If there are experts, who know what makes people tick better than the people themselves, and those experts have ill will, well...

This is more or less a typical Gettier case because the conclusion is an existential claim that is true in virtue of the existence of some particular: it is true that there is a cow in the field because this particular cow, let's call her Alice, is in the field. — Srap Tasmaner

Still granting too much to begin with.

Attributing "there is a cow in the field" to a farmer that believes that a piece of cloth is a cow is an accounting malpractice. At that particular moment in time, in that particular set of circumstances, that particular farmer believes that a piece of cloth is a cow.

The farmer's belief is false. False belief cannot be true. Belief that there is a cow in the field can be true. The farmer's belief cannot be true. Belief that there is a cow in the field cannot be the farmer's belief.




Regarding rendering the farmer's belief as belief that p...

It does not follow from the fact that the farmer's belief can be rendered in terms of propositional attitude that the farmer's belief is equivalent to a propositional attitude. In this particular case, rendering the farmer's belief in terms of an attitude towards the proposition "there is a cow in the field" such that they take that to be true is to completely change what it takes in order for the farmer's belief to be true. That's a big problem.

The farmer's belief is false. False belief cannot be true. The farmer's belief cannot be true. "There is a cow in the field" can be true. "There is a cow in the field" cannot be the farmer's belief.

My way of putting this raises some issues though: in what sense is the farmer's belief about Alice? This doesn't look good at all. Since Alice played no role in the farmer's belief formation, it's pretty clear Alice is no part of the content of the farmer's belief. Alice does play a part in the existential claim; Alice is what makes that claim true. — Srap Tasmaner

So...

Alice plays no role in the farmer's belief, but does play a role in the existential claim. Seems to me that the only conclusion to draw is that the existential claim is not the farmer's belief.

...he might have seen Alice and mistaken Alice for a bit of cloth flapping in the breeze — so not seen that Alice is a cow — and formed the mistaken belief that there's a bit of cloth in the field, which might also be Gettierly true. — Srap Tasmaner

Belief that Alice is a bit of cloth flapping in the breeze is false. The farmer's belief is false. False belief cannot be true. The farmer's belief cannot be true. Belief that there's a bit of cloth in the field can be true. Belief that there's a bit of cloth in the field cannot be the farmer's belief.

...I don't think there is a remaining problem with the existential generalization after all because we can just enumerate it: if Alice, Bobbie, Clarabelle, and Dixie are the cows in the field, then the truth of such an existential claim as we're concerned with is a truth about at least one of those: one of those four ought to play a causal role in the farmer's belief, expressed as an existential generality...

...Suppose the farmer thinks the cow he's seeing is Clarabelle, when it's Alice, even though Clarabelle is out there in the dark. — Srap Tasmaner

Belief that Alice is Clarabelle is false. The farmer's belief is false. False belief cannot be true. Belief that Alice, Bobbie, Clarabelle, and Dixie are the cows in the field can be true. The farmer's belief cannot be. Belief that Alice, Bobbie, Clarabelle, and Dixie are cows in the field cannot be the farmer's belief.

@creativesoul, I think some of your concerns are addressed above. — Srap Tasmaner

Doesn't seem like it. I'm not at all fond of the 'causal' language. Seems totally unnecessary and more of a distraction from the problem than a solution.

The only part I have not addressed is the mention of disjunctive belief/knowledge. Do you have an example that does not succumb to the critique of Gettier's Case II? Belief that either this or that is true is always based upon belief that this or that is true. To neglect to take this into account is to provide an accounting malpractice of S's belief. Putting S's belief in terms of belief that P or Q is an accounting malpractice.

If it is P that is believed, and S asserts P or Q, then S's belief that P or Q is true is better rendered as belief that P or Q is true because P. If Q, then S's belief is better rendered as belief that P or Q is true because Q.

If P or Q is true because P, and the farmer believes it's true because Q, then the farmer's belief is false, and vice versa. Rendering the farmer's belief in terms of P or Q is to treat the proposition(disjunction) as a naked one, which changes the truth conditions of S's belief.

Belief that [P or Q is true because P] is false if P or Q is true because Q. False belief cannot be true. Belief that P or Q can be true because Q is. The farmer's belief is false. Belief that P or Q cannot be the farmer's belief.

Accounting malpractices. All of them.

Gettier's two cases are similar to the cottage industry that followed with the barn facade and the cloth examples because they are al claim to stipulate situations when S satisfies the JTB conditions but does not have knowledge.

The general issue at hand is the inherently inadequate notion of belief at work. You will not find much of that in the literature... yet. This applies to Gettier's two cases, the cottage industry that followed, Moore's paradox, and Russell's clock as well as all sorts of other philosophical topics in which meaningful human thought and belief are of major importance(the scope is daunting). However, the consequences of employing the emaciated conventional (mis)conception(s) of belief differ depending upon the particulars.

With regard to the topic at hand and the context of our discussion thus far...

Granting the cottage industry's claim that S believes that there is a sheep in the field after seeing a piece of cloth is granting far too much to begin with. It ignores the mistake altogether. S believes that a particular piece of cloth is a sheep. That belief is false.

"There is a sheep in the field" is not entailed by belief that a piece of cloth is a sheep. "There is a sheep in the field" does not follow from belief that a piece of cloth is a sheep.

The attribution of that belief to S by the author is unjustified. The same critique holds good in all cottage industry cases I've been fortunate enough to have read as well as Russell's clock.

Gettier's two cases are different. In the first, Gettier uses entailment to describe Smith as going from "I am going to get the job, and I have ten coins in my pocket" to "The man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job". The man with ten coins in his pocket - you know the one Smith is thinking about - is Smith himself. Smith did not believe anyone else would get the job. Smith was not justified in believing anyone else would get the job. Someone else got the job, contrary to Smith's belief.

In the second case, Gettier uses the rules of disjunction to attempt to claim that Smith's belief that either Jones owned a Ford or Brown was in Barcelona was true as a result of Brown's being in Barcelona. Brown's being in Barcelona does indeed make the disjunction true, if we treat it as a naked proposition. However, it is not a naked proposition. Rather, it is supposed to be an account of Smith's belief. Now, Smith believed that the disjunction was true because Jones owned a Ford. The disjunction was not true because Jones owned a Ford.

In both cases, Smith's belief was justified false belief.

I agree that
It is humanly impossible to knowingly be mistaken(to knowingly hold false belief).
— creativesoul
But I don't quite understand why you say it is humanly impossible. — Ludwig V

Well, I say it because it seems pretty clear to me that in each and every instance - at the precise moment in time - when we become aware of the fact that and/or come to know that... something is not true or that something is not the case... it is quite literally impossible for us to believe otherwise.

It seems to me self-contradictory to assert "I believe that p and it is not the case that p". It is equivalent to "p is true and p is false." (Moore's paradox, of course.)

Seems pretty clear to myself also that asserting "I believe that p and it is not the case that p" is self-contradictory. That's just an inevitable consequence of what the words mean(how they're most commonly used). I'm also inclined to agree that it is very often(perhaps most often) semantically equivalent to asserting "p is true and p is false". The exceptions do not matter here.



I'm glad Moore's paradox has been mentioned...

Moore's paradox has him wondering why we can say something about someone else that we cannot also say about ourselves. He offers an example of our knowing when someone else holds false belief and then pointing it out while they still hold it. He asks, "why can we not do that with ourselves?" or words to that effect/affect. The reason why we can say "It's raining outside, but they do not believe it", but we cannot say the same thing about ourselves is because we are completely unaware of holding false beliefs while holding them, but we can be aware of others' while they hold them.

And I don't understand what you mean when you say
Beliefs are not equivalent to propositional attitudes.

Honestly, I'm not at all surprised by any hesitation. It's well-founded, especially if you're unfamiliar with my position on the relevant matters. The worldview I argue for - what makes the most sense to me - is uniquely my own; a frankenstein's monster of sorts, built from globally sourced parts. Epicurus, Xeno, Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Heidegger, Witt, Russell, Moore, Ayer, Tarski, Kripke, Quine, Davidson, Searle, Austin, and Dennett were all influencial to my view. I'm certain there are many more. That was right off the top of my head, which happens to mirror exactly how I prefer to practice this discipline.

I take serious issue with how academic convention has been taking account of meaningful human thought and belief.

I've yet to have seen a school of thought practicing a conception of meaningful thought and/or belief, consciousness, or any other sort of meaningful experience that is simple but adequate enough to be able to take account of the initial emergence, and yet rich enough in potential to be able to also account for the complexity that complex written language use has facilitated, such as the metacognitive endeavors we're currently engaged in here.

I've yet to have seen one capable of bridging the gap between language less creatures and language users in terms that are easily amenable to evolutionary progression.

I was under the impression that belief was one of the paradigmatic propositional attitudes.

Indeed, it is! Rightly so, as well...

...when and if we're specifically discussing belief about propositions, assertions, statements, utterances, etc. Not all belief is about language use. It very often is however, and when that is the case, it makes perfect sense for us to say that if one has an attitude towards the proposition "there is a cow in the field" such that they hold that the proposition is true, then they have a particular belief that amounts to a propositional attitude. I'm in complete agreement with that much - on it's face,

However, and this is what's crucial to grasp, if one believes that a piece of cloth is a cow, they most certainly do not - cannot - have an attitude towards the proposition "a piece of cloth is a cow" such that they hold that that proposition is true. That belief is not equivalent to a propositional attitude.

"There is a cow in the field" is not entailed by belief that a piece of cloth is a cow. The same holds good with barn facades and stopped clocks.

Perhaps you are referring to your point that
Believing that a cloth is a cow is not equivalent to believing that "a cloth is a cow" is true.
— creativesoul
It is true that sometimes people explicitly verbalize a belief, whether to themselves or others and sometimes they don't - and of course, animals believe things, but clearly don't verbalize them. But I don't understand why that makes any difference here.

The point wasn't specifically about whether or not people explicitly verbalize a belief. The point is that we cannot explicitly verbalize some false belief while holding it, because we cannot know we hold them - at the time. As before...

We cannot knowingly believe a falsehood.

Verbalizing belief(false ones too!) requires knowing what you believe. We can believe that a piece of cloth is a cow. We can believe that a barn facade is a barn. We can believe that a stopped clock is working.

What we cannot believe is that "a piece of cloth is a cow", or "a barn facade is a barn", or "a stopped clock is working" are true statements/assertions/propositions/etc. If we do not know that we believe a piece of cloth is a cow, if we do not know that we believe a barn facade is a barn, if we do not know that we believe a stopped clock is working, then we cannot possibly explicitly verbalize it.

Our beliefs during such situations are not equivalent to propositional attitudes.

I suppose my position could be taken as rejecting the J, T, and B aspects of those candidates.

Well you gave no choice, really. You stipulated one very efficient worker and one useless worker. In the background is the risk of failing as a company if production is low.

So...

Larry cannot do everything by himself and promotes a hostile work environment as well as lower the general morale. Attitudes like his are cancerous in the workplace. He needs to be trained on how to be a better employee.

Bob cannot do anything. He needs to be trained on how to be a better employee. I do not buy the idea that Bob cannot do anything. Everyone I've ever been around is capable of doing something well enough.

If given a choice, I choose neither as they are. I train them to be what I want. If it's all about profit, and not about a pleasant work environment, and it's possible to completely isolate the employee to prevent the unwelcome spread of hostility, aggression, and inferiority complex... I choose Larry, but I look for a replacement in the meantime.

Russell's clock is another example of accounting malpractices in my view. The person believed that a stopped clock was working. That was the false belief. It is common to attribute something much different in the form of a proposition that they would agree to at the time(that clock is working). I think that that is a mistake when it comes to false belief.

It is humanly impossible to knowingly be mistaken(to knowingly hold false belief). The mistaken false belief is not in the form of a proposition that the person knowingly believes, such as one they would assent to if asked at the time. To quite the contrary, the belief is impossible for them to knowingly hold. It is only when they become aware of the fact that they were mistaken, that they once held false belief, that they will readily assent to such.

It is only after believing that a stopped clock was working and later becoming aware that the clock had stopped that it is possible to know that one had once believed that a stopped clock was working.

Believing that a cloth is a cow is not equivalent to believing that "a cloth is a cow" is true. The same holds good for "a broken clock is working".

Beliefs are not equivalent to propositional attitudes.

Meaningful correlations that are drawn between different physical things by a creature capable of doing so are not themselves physical things. They are existentially dependent upon physical things. They consist of some physical things.
— creativesoul

What would a physical thing subsist in , outside of all ‘meaningful correlations’? — Joshs

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you rephrase?

Isn’t a physical thing a co-relationship between experiencer and object of experience?

Not in my view.

What features , properties and attributes do you imagine a physical thing to possess outside of our interaction with it?

Whatever it may consist of. I'm fond of parsing things in terms of their basic elementary constituents.

Aren’t features, properties and attributes correlational functions?

Not in my view.

“It is an illusion to think that the notions of “object” or “reality” or “world” have any sense outside of and independently of our conceptual schemes (Putnam 1992, 120). Putnam is not denying that there are “external facts”;

I've no use for the notion of "external facts"

I would concur that it is mistaken to think that notions have sense independently of language use. However, I would only remark here that the thing outside in my yard is not my notion/conception of a kukui nut tree. To quite the contrary, it is a kukui nut tree. My notion of a kukui nut tree consists of correlations drawn between the thing named "kukui nut tree" and other things(such as the name). The kukui nut tree does not consist of correlations drawn between it and other things.

...he even thinks that we can say what they are; but as he writes, “what we cannot say – because it makes no sense – is what the facts are independent of all conceptual choices” (Putnam 1987, 33). We cannot hold all our current beliefs about the world up against the world and somehow measure the degree of correspondence between the two.

Putnam may not be able to, but my twenty seven month old grandaughter could, and did. Someone told her that there was nothing in the fridge for her, and she showed them otherwise by opening the door and pointing out all the things inside.

It is, in other words, nonsensical to suggest that we should try to peel our perceptions and beliefs off the world, as it were, in order to compare them in some direct way with what they are about (Stroud 2000, 27). This is not to say that our conceptual schemes create the world, but as Putnam writes, they don't just mirror it either”(Putnam 1978).

Talking in terms of 'peeling our perceptions and beliefs off the world' is nonsense. I agree.

I've nothing else to say. Be well.

When A is existentially dependent upon B then B is necessary for the emergence of A. When something(A) is existentially dependent upon something else(B), the former(B) cannot precede the latter(A).

You're claiming that the intellect is what orders the individual parts of the senses(physiological sensory perception). That would require that the intellect exist in its entirety prior to the parts that it arranges into order. This would further require a complete severance of the intellect from all biological machinery(physiological sensory perception) such that the intellect could put those biological structures in order.

I have no reason at all to believe that the capacity you call the intellect is anything aside from what is afforded to us by certain biological structures. I've no reason whatsoever to believe that the intellect is even capable of remaining intact(in it's entirety) in the complete absence of those structures. Evidence shows otherwise. From this, we can be sure enough that intellects are existentially dependent upon certain biological structures. Whereas there is no evidence to the contrary. We've yet to have discovered a case of intellect when and where there have never been biological structures.

All things begin simply and grow in their complexity. Thought, belief, and thinking about thought and belief are no exception. The intellect you speak of is capable of doubting the veracity of the senses. As such it is a practice that is itself existentially dependent upon being able to think about one's own thought and belief. That requires picking one's own thoughts and beliefs out to the exclusion of all else. The intellect is existentially dependent upon a worldview. All worldviews consist entirely of thought and belief. All thought and belief results, in part, of certain biological structures(physiological sensory perception) doing their job. The intellect cannot precede that which it is existentially dependent upon.

What exists that is not of the physical world yet not supernatural?

Nothing. However, not all things emerging from the physical world are themselves physical. They are all naturally occurring. Meaningful correlations that are drawn between different physical things by a creature capable of doing so are not themselves physical things. They are existentially dependent upon physical things. They consist of some physical things.

A correlation drawn between a specific sort of screech and a specific sort of predator is not physical. The screech is meaningful, and it becomes so by virtue of being/becoming a part of that correlation. When more than one creature draws the same correlation, then we have the basics of being one step closer to language use. Meaningful thought and/or belief is not supernatural. Language use is not supernatural. All language use draws correlations between different things. Drawing correlations between screeches and predators is forming basic belief that the predator is nearby when the screech is heard. If these creatures do it for the reason of sounding an alarm rather than the involuntary fear response at the sight of the predator, then we have a certain case of basic language use. If not, then we still have a basic case of shared meaning. Shared meaning is required for language use. That belief(that a predator is near) is meaningful to creatures drawing the correlations between the screech and the predator.

Meaningful thought and belief are existentially dependent upon the physical. They are neither supernatural nor physical.

Gettier demonstrates how the rules of entailment do not successfully preserve truth.


Why, again, is it an acceptable thing to do? We employ the rules of entailment, completely change Smith's beliefs from false ones to true ones, and then somehow think that this is all acceptable?

Smith is not justified in believing that anyone else has ten coins in their pocket. He is also not justified in believing anyone else with ten coins in their pocket will get the job, but that's exactly what happened - contrary to his belief that he was the man with ten coins in his pocket who would get the job.

FULL STOP.

S (a person) knows P (a proposition) iff

1. S believes P
2. P is true
3. P is justified

When (1) S believes P it means, for S, P is true or S thinks P is true. — Agent Smith

Okay, so long as...

P need not be true in order for it to be believed. The phrase "for S, P is true" conflates truth and belief. There are plenty of cases when/where S can believe P, but P be false. Belief is necessary but insufficient for well-grounded true belief. Truth is necessary and insufficient for well grounded true belief. Justification follows suit if, being justified requires being argued for. If justification requires putting one's reasons into words in a manner which somehow dovetails with current conventional rules governing the practice; well then, we cannot possibly account for well grounded true belief that emerges prior to the complex language use necessary for becoming a successful practitioner of justification endeavors..

Toddlers cannot do that, yet they can certainly know when some statement is false on its face. They can know right away that what was said to be the case was not the case, despite their complete incompetence to put that into words.

A twenty-seven month old child knew when "Thur's nuthin in thur for yew!" was false despite the fact that they she was uncapable of uttering it or her reasons for not believing it. She knew that that claim was false because she knew that there were things in there. She opened the door and demonstrated her knowledge to each and every individual in the room. Not all that uncommon an occurrence, I would think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with JTB that Gettier called attention to was not a problem with well-grounded true belief at all. It was and remains a problem with the so-salled 'rules' of logical entailment. They permitted Edmund to change Smith's belief from being about himself to being about someone else. It is when we forget that that we fall into error.

While it may be true that "the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job" is entailed by "I have ten coins in my pocket, and I'm going to get the job", it is most certainly impossible for Smith to believe that anyone else will get the job.

FULL STOP.

In fact, in the Platonic tradition, we use the intellect to question, doubt what appears to us through sensation. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, the intellect orders the parts that it later doubts?

I really didn't understand your use of "tool" — Metaphysician Undercover

It followed from the rationale you employed to arrive at not trusting the senses. You mentioned how we have exceeded our innate capabilities, or words to that effect. We use tools to do that. We 'use' our senses to use tools.

The intellect is existentially dependent upon physiological sensory perception(biological 'machinery').

The dispute between us amounts to you holding that the senses are existentially dependent upon an intellect, whereas I'm stating the opposite.

If you think that morality is a tool that we use and that we can do so completely independent of physiological sensory perception, then I'm not sure I've much interest in continuing. Notice how I didn't answer Mww. If you think that the intellect can somehow exist and/or emerge in the complete absence of physiological sensory perception then I've not much else to say. I find it odd that you're asking me to argue for my view, and even odder that you've accused me of begging the question when I've not even offered an argument. That's especially odd given that you're presupposing precisely what's in dispute within one of your premisses.

Beliefs are not equivalent to P. <-------That's a basic problem underwriting Gettier problems. The 'logical' rules of entailment are another. Treating beliefs as though they are 'naked' propositions with no speaker is yet another.

A conclusion produced by valid logic, is a necessary conclusion, — Metaphysician Undercover

So all valid conclusions are necessary in your view? Seems our notions of "necessary" differ.

a fallacious argument called "begging the question", — Metaphysician Undercover

The irony.

I've not given any argument. Answer the questions.

My claim is supported by the evidence. That's what the questions were about. Plato's is supported by logical possibility alone. There are no examples.

I don't see how these questions are relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

You claimed that we ought not trust our senses but rather our intellect. I claimed it was impossible.

I just wondered if there was any conncection between Trump's penchant for stealing classified materials and that reporting. — creativesoul

May still be far out ahead of my skis, but I think this classified document situation is much bigger than the information released thus far.

So, you separate the intellect from the senses by virtue of positing a mind(presumably of God) and then tell me that my claim that senses precede intellect needs justification?

Which tool do we use without requiring us to trust and use our senses? Which thought can we have without using our senses?

The reason employees do not have a say in where the profits go is because they are not owners.
— creativesoul

But ought they be? — Isaac

I personally believe that employee owned companies are better frameworks for a variety of reasons. However, not all people make good business owners. I think also that a big problem arises when a company's loyalties are conflicts of interest between shareholders' financial statements and employees' livelihoods.

I suspect we may be in agreement regarding what's best for a country's citizens when it comes to how the country sets up and creates its own socio-economic landscape.

I was thinking more along the lines of her notion of acting in one's own self-interest preceding all other reasons to act.

I've always wondered how anyone in their right mind would believe that logically possible worlds could tell us anything at all about the sort of truth that emerges long before we're able to talk about our own thoughts and beliefs. That's far more primary than extensive esoteric discussions with little or no practical value about some overly complex notion borne of metacognition.

Logical possibility is a measure of consistency/coherency/validity. It is only by thinking about and discussing our own lives that we can arrive at a sensible discussion about logical possibility. Long before talking about how things could have been different, how things are different, how things could be different, long before all such discussions, we are humans living the set of experiences that all humans share... each set unique to one's own life. All those experiences are chock full of human thought and belief. Those thought and belief - that worldview - contained all sorts of thoughts and beliefs that are true and all sorts that were not.

Some of those were not even able to be true or not. None of them were based upon making everything possible. Not everything is possible. Some things are impossible. No amount of argumentation will change events of the past. Yet we can easily stipulate a possible world in which we disregard that which is known to have happened, essentially replacing history(what happened and/or is happening) with falsehood. We can then further discuss what may or may not have been the case according to our stipulations. We can measure the consistency, coherence, and/or the validity against the current norms thereof.

If it follows the conventional rules of logical inference, then it is deemed logical, reasonable, rational.

A story can be perfectly meaningful, easy to read and understand, and otherwise intelligible to not only those with some mastery of language like us, but also to those still early on in the language use game. It could also follow all the rules of logical inference and still be false on its face... absurd even.

This shows us that we we ought not place too much value upon those standards, particularly when the topic is truth.

Plato's principal message was that the senses deceive us in our quest for truth, follow the intellect not the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Plato's principal message amounts to setting an unattainable criterion. The intellect follows from the senses. The senses are primary. The intellect is secondary.

Since you're speaking in evolutionary terms.

Science has enabled us to increase our innate sensory capacities. One has no choice but to follow their senses even when it is the case that they're using tools.

(3) Where do the profits go? — Xtrix

To the owners to do with as they please.

The reason employees do not have a say in where the profits go is because they are not owners.

What determines the standard of truth by which an individual's belief is judged? — Merkwurdichliebe

Belief need not be judged to be either true or false. True and false belief existed in its entirety prior to our awareness of it.

Standard of truth?

What's that?

One point I think I clarified somewhere else is that in something like "The book is not red," we place the "not" before "red" purely as a matter of English convention, and because, with no other scope in play, there's no ambiguity. But that's still a proposition-level "not" and a more verbose way to say the same thing is "It is not the case that ball is red." It's sometimes convenient to pretend that "not red" is something we might predicate of an object, but it isn't really. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. It really is.

We need not pretend that it is not convention for all of us to say of a book that it is not red, even if it is convenient to admit the convention and then act like it's not something we 'really' do as a means for rationalizing or handwaving away our inability to take proper account of the fact that we do it.

Rhetorical drivel.