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

:-|

Is that what I said?

Gettier wrote:

Each of these propositions is entailed by (f). Imagine that Smith realizes the entailment of each of these propositions he has constructed by (0, and proceeds to accept (g), (h), and (i) on the basis of (f). Smith has correctly inferred (g), (h), and (i) from a proposition for which he has strong evidence. Smith is therefore completely justified in believing each of these three propositions. Smith, of course, has no idea where Brown is.

That is precisely what needs a thorough unpacking.

That is most certainly relevant.

That IS Smith's belief that: ((p v q) is true because (p) is true)

Or... more specifically...

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 if either (p) or (q) is true), and ((q) is not true).

Show me where it goes wrong.

Do you understand why that sentence is there?

BTW, I've considered arguing that this is simply false:

Smith, of course, has no idea where Brown is.

But that's a whole 'nother thing.

Not following Srap... what sentence?

For the life me, I think that that nails the lid down on the coffin of case II.

Gettier wrote:

Imagine that Smith realizes the entailment of each of these propositions he has constructed by (0, and proceeds to accept (g), (h), and (i) on the basis of (f)...

What else could such an imagining consist of if not exactly what I've painstakingly set out in such excruciating detail?

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 if either (p) or (q) is true), and ((q) is not true).

So, Smith has false belief.

It is not the case that (p v q) is true because (p) is true.

Why ought the justification aspect matter here?

:-|

Granting that the second Gettier case has been effectively dissolved, which may still be in question for some, does the fact that everyone has been focused upon the justification aspect count as bewitchment, seeing how the belief aspect was the root of the problem?

Granting that the second Gettier case has been effectively dissolved, — creativesoul

As far as I can tell, no.

If Smith believes that (h), and is justified in his belief that (h), then if (h) is true, which it is, then Smith should know that (h), which he clearly doesn't.

For judging Case II, nothing else is relevant.

That has been refuted.

Here is Smith's thought/belief process, in the timeline Gettier sets out. In other words, here is the imagining that Gettier asks the reader to perform...

Gettier wrote:

Imagine that Smith realizes the entailment of each of these propositions he has constructed by (0, and proceeds to accept (g), (h), and (i) on the basis of (f)...

That is what the below unpacks, and what the earlier more condensed argument sets out as well as what the earlier long-form argument explains...

p1. 'Jones owns a Ford' is true
p2. 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' follows from 'Jones owns a Ford'
p3. 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' is true if either 'Jones owns a Ford' or 'Brown is in Barcelona' is true
p4. 'Brown is in Barcelona' is not true
C. 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' is true because 'Jones owns a Ford' is true

No, it really hasn't.

Smith has a false belief that (f). From it he derives, by valid inference, a true belief that (h). I describe this as an application of modus ponens by Smith. I think that's accurate enough and it is roughly how Gettier presents it. You describe the modus ponens step as Smith forming a belief that (h) because (f). It makes no difference to the overall argument. Smith then concludes that (h), which is a justified and true belief that is apparently not knowledge.

As I said, modus ponens does not actually apply here because (f) is false, although the conditional (f)→(h) is true. Smith, however, believes that (f), and thus is entirely consistent in applying modus ponens. His trouble comes not from making an inference he shouldn't -- he should, given his belief that (f); his trouble comes from having that false belief that (f).

I think it would also be fair to say that his trouble comes from believing that the evidence he has for (f) is strong enough to warrant a claim to know that (f). It wasn't. But that's another story.

(1) Smith does not believe that (h).

(2) Smith's inference of (h) from (f) is faulty.

What is your claim?

p4. 'Brown is in Barcelona' is not true — creativesoul

Here that means "Brown is not in Barcelona," and we are given no such claim.

Randomly picked locations. Smith, of course, has no idea where Brown is.

You figure Smith doesn't know that?

:-}

Why such resistance Srap?

Gettier wrote:

Imagine that Smith realizes the entailment of each of these propositions he has constructed by (0, and proceeds to accept (g), (h), and (i) on the basis of (f)

Here's the thing...

What Gettier claims that Smith does requires precisely what I've just set out.

Yes, we know. I've said as much. It's right there in the text. So what?

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 if either (p) or (q) is true), and ((q) is not true).

How else does one arrive at belief that: ((p v q) is true)?

Which part of that isn't necessary?

((q) is not true) — creativesoul

That is not a belief of Smith.

belief that: ((p v q) is true)

How else does one arrive at belief that: ((p v q) is true)?

Which part of that isn't necessary?

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 if either (p) or (q) is true), and ((q) is not true).

These are not equivalent:
(1) Smith does not believe that Brown is in Barcelona.
(2) Smith believes that Brown is not in Barcelona.

Those are not relevant.

((q) is not true)

If you choose to submit your solution for publication, the natural choice would be Analysis.

What do you think about 'em?