Does Smith believe that pvq is true?

If by "true" you mean being the result of a valid inference, then sure. He believes that at the moment he accepts Q. Otherwise, Smith's belief is C1.

I'm curious though. If Smith does go through the process I've set out and arrives at C2, doesn't that nullify his justification?

It's an invalid inference. My solution is good both ways, right?

Nevermind that last bit...

:-*

So does Smith believe that "Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

EDIT: left off "is true".

He believes that 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' follows from 'Jones own a Ford'.

But he does not believe that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona?

He believes that the proposition is true if either statement is true. He believes the proposition is true because Jones owns a Ford.

So he does believe "Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

No. As soon as you start using quotes it changes things. As I said earlier, I've packed as much as possible within the belief statement. Leaving it out changes the meaning significantly.

Believing "'Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' is true" is not equivalent to belief that:((p v q) is true because (p)).

Does Smith believe that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona?

Smith believes Jones owns a Ford.

But he does not believe that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona?

He believes that 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' follows from 'Jones owns a Ford'. He believes Jones owns a Ford. He believes that 'Jones owns a Ford' is true.

But he does not believe that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona?

He believes that 'Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' follows from 'Jones owns a Ford'. He believes that 'Jones owns a Ford' is true. He believes Jones owns a Ford.

You see my influences?

O:)

But he does not believe that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona, and he does not believe that "Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

He believes that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true because Jones owns a Ford.

QED?

So Smith does believe that "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

No.

Salva veritate

So Smith does not believe that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

He believes that:the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true because Jones owns a Ford.

But he does not believe that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

I'm saying that that is an inadequate description.

Does Smith believe that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

Smith believes that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true because Jones owns a Ford.

Nothing less suffices Srap. Nothing.

Does Smith believe that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true?

Smith believes Jones owns a Ford. Smith believes that 'Jones owns a Ford' is true. Smith believes that 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' follows from 'Jones owns a Ford'. Smith believes that '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. Smith believes that 'Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona' is true because Jones owns a Ford.

So Smith believes that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true because Jones owns a Ford, and he does not believe that the proposition "Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona" is true.

Is that correct?