You wrote:
Nothing you've said refutes Gettier's argument.
Smith believes that (p v q) is true because p is true.
Smith is wrong.
(p v q) is true because q is. — creativesoul
Are you claiming that Smith does not believe that (p v q) is true because p is? — creativesoul
Believing that (p v q) is true is much different than believing that (p v q) is true because p is. Smith holds the latter, not the former. — creativesoul
Believing that (p v q) is true is much different than believing that (p v q) is true because p is. Smith holds the latter, not the former.
"Smith believes that 'p ∨ q is true because p is true' is true" with "Smith believes that 'p ∨ q' is true because Smith believes that p is true".
Smith believes that (p v q) is true because p is true. Smith holds false belief. — creativesoul
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 Smith to believe that (p v q) is true because p is. — creativesoul
4.Smith believes that (p v q) is true because p is true. — creativesoul
Smith believes that p v q because Smith believes that p.
So, it's justified false belief? — creativesoul
Smith believes that p v q because p is true. — creativesoul
I'm not talking about his belief that p. — creativesoul
The justification is irrelevant. Smith's belief is false. (p v q) is not true because p is. — creativesoul
What are you denying? — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.