• creativesoul
    1.5k
    For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.

    The above works from an utterly inadequate, and all too common, (mis)conception of belief.

    Belief statements are always believed by the speaker. Statements that are always believed by the speaker do not include statements that are not(believed by the speaker). Disjunctions can.

    Disjunctions are not belief statements.

    During sincere speech acts, when someone is talking about the world and/or themselves, s/he is talking in ways that represent their own belief. One cannot believe a statement that s/he does not think is true. Sincere speech acts do not include statements that are not believed. Disjunctions can.

    Disjunctions are neither always sincere speech acts, nor belief statements.

    When sensibly talking in terms of belief that 'X', X is always a belief statement. The history of philosophy has held that the value of 'X' can be satisfied by virtue of using a proposition. Propositions include disjunctions. Disjunctions are not belief statements. Propositions are not always belief statements. When sensibly talking in terms of belief that 'X', X cannot be a disjunction.

    In order to know that 'X is true', one must believe 'X'. When sensibly talking in terms of knowing that 'X', X cannot be a disjunction.

    ((p) is true)
    ((p v q) follows from (p))
    ((p v q) is true if...(insert belief statement(s) regarding what makes this particular disjunction true))
    ((p v q) is true because...(insert belief statements corresponding to the above "if"))

    The above clearly puts the necessary thought/belief process for believing a disjunction on display for all to see. It reports upon the necessary content within believing a disjunction. Since Gettier's case hinges upon what counts as believing a disjunction, it lands squarely within the applicable bounds/scope of the above solution.

    This account is also quite amenable to the common sense groundwork at the top of this post. Gettier's report of Smith's belief is not.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.