I've already stated my argument — Michael
Let me give you a clue. The premise that you need is something like this:
If p is true then p ∨ q is true.
If there is strong evidence that p is true, then p is true.
Therefore, if there is strong evidence that p is true then there is strong evidence that p ∨ q is true.
Unfortunately, the premise that you need is not true, even according to Gettier. — unenlightened
That's not my argument. And I don't understand what that second premise is doing. — Michael
But your argument is invalid. — unenlightened
Apart from the second premise, it is an exact quote of your argument. — unenlightened
The second premise is the hidden premise that would make your argument valid. — unenlightened
Evidence is closed under disjunction introduction. — Michael
Adding to my argument changes my argument. I don't accept that second premise. — Michael
I will simply assert that evidence that I have hazel eyes is evidence that "I have hazel eyes or unenlightened has brown" is true. I think it would be absurd to deny this. — Michael
Cool. then we have no argument; you are pontificating, and I am absurd. Have fun. — unenlightened
So pooh-pooh with a "have fun" all you like. I'm content with my reasonable (and correct) account. — Michael
If p is true then p ∨ q is true.
If there is strong evidence that p is true, then p is true.
Therefore, if there is strong evidence that p is true then there is strong evidence that p ∨ q is true. — unenlightened
If p is true then p ∨ q is true.
If there is strong evidence that p is true, then p is true.
Therefore, if there is strong evidence that p is true then there is strong evidence that p ∨ q is true. — unenlightened
If J is Jones owning a Ford, and D is the evidence Smith is relying on, then the belief he holds highly probable is not really just J but J∣D, the probability of J given D. And it's dead easy to show that for any X
P(J∨X∣D)≥P(J∣D). — Srap Tasmaner
It's not my conclusion, it's Michael's. I only provided the middle premise, to illustrate that his argument needed one.shouldn't your conclusion be "If there is strong evidence that p, then p v q"? — Srap Tasmaner
If p is true then p ∨ q is true. Therefore, if there is strong evidence that p is true then there is strong evidence that p ∨ q is true. — Michael
Once you've tested it with the numbers you can substitute back in the ordinary terms: — Michael
P(~J∨X∣D)≥P(J∣D). — unenlightened
I think that there is something to be gleaned out of the fact that B consists of more than one statement. What counts as being a proposition is starkly different than what counts as being a belief statement. — creativesoul
If there are good reasons to believe p then there are good reasons to believe p ∨ q. How could it be any other way?
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.