You arrive at true belief. The justification aspect is not a current concern of mine. — creativesoul

Am I justified in P and can I use my justification in P and basic rules of logic to arrive at (P v Q). I am justified in believing (P v Q). I do not care about the actual truth values of these various propositions. I currently only care whether I would be justified in (P v Q).

I hate to ask this, but this symbol "∵" means therefore, correct? I thought the triangle was inverted. Or is that simply to seperate the two propositions?

I hate to ask this, but this symbol "∵" means therefore, correct? I thought the triangle was inverted. Or is that simply to seperate the two propositions? — Chany

∵ is because and ∴ is therefore. I believe it's just a way to reverse the order.

On the way to belief that:((p v q) is true), Smith forms/holds belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)). That is a necessary step in the thought/belief process that leads one to belief that:((p v q) is true). Gettier's formulation is inadequate in it's ability to properly take account of Smith's belief.

Justification is not my concern. Smith holds false belief. False belief is not a problem for JTB. Gettier's Case II is not a problem for JTB.

On the way to belief that:((p v q) is true), Smith forms/holds belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)). — creativesoul

On the way to my belief that Donald Trump is the President I form the belief that Donald Trump is the President because he won the popular vote. But why does that matter? My belief that Donald Trump is the President is true nonetheless.

That is a necessary step in the thought/belief process that leads one to belief that:((p v q) is true).

It's not necessary. He could have arrived at that belief by believing that q is true, just as I could have arrived at my belief by believing that Donald Trump won the most electoral college votes. It's just that in this case we didn't. But again, why does that matter? My belief that Donald Trump is the President is true nonetheless and Smith's belief that p ∨ q is true is true nonetheless.

Smith cannot arrive at belief that:((p v q) is true) with a single deduction. Gettier's formulation for Smith's arrival at belief that:((p v q) is true) is found to be utterly inadequate as a direct result. To arrive at belief that:((p v q) is true) Smith must go through belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)). The argument shows precisely that.

Salva veritate is germane because belief that:((p v q) is true) is not equivalent to belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)). The former cannot be substituted for the latter, for it leaves out the necessary deduction within Smith's thought/belief process. The latter is Smith's thought/belief.

p1. ((p) is true)
p2. ((p v q) follows from (p))
p3. ((p v q) is true if either (p) or (q) is true)
C1. ((p v q)) is true because (p))(from p1,p3)

Fill it out Michael...

That's Gettier's Case II being adequately taken account of.

p1. ((p) is true)
p2. ((p v q) follows from (p))
p3. ((p v q) is true if either (p) or (q) is true)
C1. ((p v q)) is true because (p))(from p1,p3) — creativesoul

Are you going to use p2 for anything?

Also, p3 is just P∨Q→P∨Q.

p2 accounts for the single deduction in Gettier's formulation.

You're ignoring what I'm saying and repeating the same red herrings.

I believe that Donald Trump is the President because he won the popular vote. This is a false belief, but my belief that Donald Trump is the President is true.

Smith believes that p ∨ q is true because p is true. This is a false belief, but his belief that p ∨ q is true is true.

How do these situations differ?

Mirror mirror...

p2 accounts for the single deduction in Gettier's formulation. — creativesoul

It's a premise not used in your deduction anywhere.

:s

Not following Srap...

Not following Srap... — creativesoul

You derive C1 from p1 and p3. What do you use p2 for?

The argument I'm presenting isn't my argument per se. Rather, it's an adequate account of what Gettier says that Smith does, as compared/contrasted to Gettier's own formulation in the beginning of the paper. With that in mind, p2 accounts for the single deduction in Gettier's formulation.

The argument I'm presenting isn't my argument per se. Rather, it's an adequate account of what Gettier says that Smith does, as compared/contrasted to Gettier's own formulation in the beginning of the paper. With that in mind, p2 accounts for the single deduction in Gettier's formulation. — creativesoul

So what does Gettier use p2 for?

He uses it to move justification from p to q. I think. It is the deduction in his formula, and he makes a point to note that Smith makes that deduction.

As I've said, the justification aspect is not my kuleana...

On the way to my belief that Donald Trump is the President I form the belief that Donald Trump is the President because he won the popular vote. But why does that matter?

It matters because the only way that Smith can arrive at belief that:((p v q) is true) is via belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)).

The argument shows that.

The gravity is immense Michael. Set your preconceptions aside for a moment, and re- read my earlier post laying out the justificatory ground for the argument I've presented against Gettier.

It matters because the only way that Smith can arrive at belief that:((p v q) is true) is via belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)). — creativesoul

No it isn't. He can get there via the belief that q is true. Or he can get their via trusting his friend who tells him that p ∨ q is true.

I believe I am not adopted. Is this a belief? Do I believe the proposition "I am not adopted?"

That's not what Gettier set out.

Don't get into it...

;)

Thought/belief has not been adequately represented by the whole of philosophy. That's another thread in it's own right, although this one sheds a bit of light on that. What can I say, I like to start with a 'bang!'...

O:)

Gettier said that Smith believes that p ∨ q is true because he believes that p is true. He didn't say that Smith couldn't have believed that q is true instead.

All you seem to be saying is that Smith only believes that p ∨ q is true because he believes that p is true. But again, how is that any different to me only believing that Donald Trump is the President because I believe that he won the popular vote?

Gettier said that Smith believes that p ∨ q is true because he believes that p is true...

:-O

This coming from one who accused me of misreading...

No. He didn't.

Yes.

So, how is Smith's belief any different to my belief? We both believe that some A is true because some B is true, even though our respective Bs are false.

(P v Q) is the conclusion to an argument. "Because" operates the same as "therefore." Smith believes (P v Q). Why? Because P and the rule of addition.

But Smith believes (P v Q) as a proposition.

Another example:

A1. I believe that John is a bachelor
A2. If John is a bachelor then John is a man
A3. I believe that John is a man because he is a bachelor
A4. I believe that John is a man
A5. John isn't a bachelor
A6. John is a man

Do I have a true belief? Yes. My belief that John is a man.

B1. I believe that p is true
B2. If p is true then p ∨ q is true
B3. I believe that p ∨ q is true because p is true
B4. I believe that p ∨ q is true
B5. p isn't true
B6. p ∨ q is true

Do I have a true belief? Yes. My belief that p ∨ q is true.

So, @creativesoul, how do you address this? Is the logic in A different to the logic in B? Or is A4 not a true belief that I have? Because it seems obvious to me that the logic is the same and that A4 is a true belief that I have. Therefore B4 is also a true belief that I have.

p1. ((p) is true)
p2. ((p v q) follows from (p))
p3. ((p v q) is true if either (p) or (q) is true)
C1. ((p v q)) is true because (p))(from p1,p3)

Fill it out with your candidate for a belief that:((p v q) is true) Michael.