They're called 'fake barn' cases. — Bartricks

Yeah, I've heard of 'em. Those are easy to refute as well.

They're called 'fake barn' cases. — Bartricks
Yeah, I've heard of 'em. Those are easy to refute as well. — creativesoul

Yes, you heard about them 3 or 4 minutes ago - from me.

Argh! My apologies. You're right. — creativesoul

That's the spirit. Get used to saying that. That's just one tiny crumb of humble pie there - I've got a spade of it for you.

Let's look at Case I... — creativesoul

You mean like I did and you didn't? Drop the teacher act. I don't need my hand held. I'm the one frogmarching you to school, sonny.

Smith believed Jones would get the job, and no one else. — creativesoul

That's the refutation of Gettier Case I in a nutshell. Do you understand that?

Do you understand that? — creativesoul

Now, you've stopped eating the humble pie - remember, I understand these cases far better than you. So stop acting like the reverse is true. It's a big spade o pie and the sooner you get your lips around it the better.

Again: you don't undersand them.

I mean, how the hell does this:

Smith believed Jones would get the job, and no one else. — creativesoul

refute them?!?

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about!! Not a clue. How do you boil an egg? I imagine you insist on first cracking it into a frying pan and then hurling the whole combo into a hedge.

Gettier cases refute justified-true-belief accounts of knowledge (and any other account of knowledge that appeals to some mechanism of belief acquisition that falls short of guaranteeing truth).

To overcome them you'd need to specify a mechanism of belief acquisition that did not guarantee the truth of the beliefs it leads to, yet is immune to Gettier-style refutation. By all means give that a go, but since no-one has yet been able to do that - indeed the task looks hopeless - I am not going to hold my breath.

I mean, how the hell does this:

Smith believed Jones would get the job, and no one else.
— creativesoul

refute them?!? — Bartricks

Calm down. I'll show you.

First...

Smith believes Jones will get the job. We agree here, right?

To overcome them you'd need to specify a mechanism of belief acquisition that did not guarantee the truth of the beliefs it leads to, yet is immune to Gettier-style refutation — Bartricks

That's not true. I've overcome them(it's a refutation as best I can tell) by virtue of showing how Smith does not believe what Gettier needs Smith to believe. It's common sense. I'm more than happy to explain it, if you're willing to listen.

You really aren't going to eat any more pie are you? There's so much of it!

Smith believes Jones will get the job. We agree here, right? — creativesoul

There's no 'we' here. Just explain. Lay it out for teacher. Show your working.

I'm more than happy to explain it, if you're willing to listen. — creativesoul

No you aren't or you'd have done so. All filler, no killer.

Remember - you don't even understand the cases you're talking about.

Read the article and then read some commentaries on it. Then realize I'm right.

Note how nice I am being in allowing you to go off in a self-righteous huff and save face.

Hold your horses... Jeez. Don't be such a dick. You give me two minutes to refute Gettier? I had to revisit the paper, just to make sure I was not involved in an accounting malpractice. Two minutes to do what you said cannot be done? That's a bit unreasonable a timeframe, dontcha think?. No worries, my good man. Thing is, I can do it on the fly, because I know the underlying issues by heart. Took me seven minutes.

:razz:

Smith believes Jones will get the job. He knows Jones has ten coins in his pocket. He infers that the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job.

Here's the rub...

Smith's belief - and hence his inference is about Jones, not anyone else. Someone other than Jones gets the job. Smith's belief is false. The referent of "the man with ten coins in his pocket" is Jones... not Smith.

That's the accounting malpractice.

It's a conflation of proposition and belief.

Read the article and then read some commentaries on it. — Bartricks

Oh, believe me... I've studied it very carefully. It's just been a while, and it's not the only thing going on in my life....

:wink:

Oh, believe me... I've studied it very carefully. — creativesoul

Which makes it all the sadder that you don't understand them.

Here's the rub...

Smith's belief is about Jones, not anyone else. Someone other than Jones gets the job. Smith's belief is false. The referent of "the man with ten coins in his pocket" is Jones... not Smith. — creativesoul

That's it?? That's what you think overcomes Gettier cases? laughable.

He believes 'the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket". He also believes Jones will get the job and that Jones has ten coins in his pocket.

He believes 'the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket". — Bartricks

That's the sleight of hand my good man... As I've explained several times heretofore. The rules of entailment permit a change in the truth conditions and meaning of Smith's belief. It does not have to be that way though. We do not have to conflate belief and propositions, which is what Gettier has done, and neglected the details of Smith's belief in the process. He did the same thing in Case II.

We're taking account of Smith's belief here. "The person" refers to Jones. "The person" does not refer to Smith. Smith does not believe that anyone other than Jones will get the job. Gettier needs him to. He doesn't. He can't.

Gettier needs "the person with ten coins in his pocket" to refer to Smith. It doesn't, not in Smith's belief anyway. That's the conflation between the truth conditions of that inference as proposition and the truth conditions of that inference as Smith's belief. They are not one in the same thing.

It's Smith's belief about Jones, and it's false. Therefore, not a problem for JTB.

QED

That's it?? — Bartricks

Yup. That's it. Simple. Common sense. Eloquent. Easy to understand. What more could you ask?

Which makes it all the sadder that you don't understand them. — Bartricks

:wink:

Yeah, that's it...

:kiss:

That's the sleight of hand my good man. — creativesoul

No it isn't. The relevant belief is not "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket" but "the person who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".

For instance, that belief is 'true' (you'd have to insist it is false, yes? For by your reasoning what would make it true is Jones and Jones alone occupying the role with 10 coins in his pocket)

As I said, what's core to a Gettier example is that a person forms a belief in an epistemically responsible fashion, and the belief is true, but it is true by fluke (which is always going to be possible so long as the epistemically responsible fashion does not guarantee the truth of the belief it furnishes you with).

So, to see this just imagine another way of setting up the case. Imagine that Smith has justified beliefs that Jones will get the job and that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket. Now imagine that prior to the interview someone pickpockets Jones and steals the 10 coins. Then imagine that, by pure fluke, just after the pickpocketing incident, Jones finds 10 coins in the street and puts them in his pocket. Then Jones gets the job.

Now Smith believes that the person who gets the job has 10 coins in his pocket. And it turns out that the belief is true. But because it was by pure fluke that it was true - given the earlier incidents - Smith's belief, though justified, does not qualify as knowledge.

Perhaps you will reply that this time Smith's belief is about the 10 original coins and not the subsequent ones (which is prima facie absurd, of course). But in that case just imagine that the pickpocket dropped the coins after pickpocketing Jones and Jones, by pure fluke, found them on the street and put them in his pocket. Again, Smith's belief is going to be true and justified, yet not knowledge.

The relevant belief is... ..."the person who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket". — Bartricks

Yes!

Bullseye!!!

Whose belief is it, and who precisely does it refer to?

Who is it about?

Who is the referent of "the person with ten coins in his pocket"?

Not Smith.

It's Smith's belief and it's all about Jones.

Therefore, it's false, and again poses no problem for JTB.

I suggest you re-read what I've written tonight.

As I said, what's core to a Gettier example is that a person forms a belief in an epistemically responsible fashion, and the belief is true... — Bartricks

Smith's belief is that Jones is the man with ten coins in his pocket who will get the job. That belief is false. No problem for JTB.

Which makes it all the sadder that you don't understand them. — Bartricks
:wink:

Yeah, that's it... — creativesoul

Yes. It is.

Your 'solution' demonstrably doesn't work.

The relevant belief is... ..."the person who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket". — Bartricks
Yes!

Bullseye!!!

Who's belief is it, and who precisely does it refer to? Not Smith.

I suggest you re-read what I've written tonight. — creativesoul

Er, no I won't be doing that except to quote this line, which I feel is apt:

Don't be such a dick. — creativesoul

Ding ding! Oh, there's the bell - playtime is over and lessons must begin.

Now, the belief is about the holder of the role. (A role that, in the original case, Smith gets).

So the belief is 'true'. And it is 'justified'. And yet it does not qualify as knowledge.

You are going to have to insist - absurdly -that the belief is false. That's wrong. It's true.

Now children, read my variation on the case - a variation that no-one needs to run, but that I ran just to highlight how profoundly wrong you are about the nature of the problem.

In my variation Smith's belief unquestionably refers to Jones, and to the coins in Jones's pocket. And it is true (because in my variation Jones does get the job). And yet it does not qualify as knowledge.

So, now write down in your copy books the following:

What's essential to a Gettier case is that a person acquires a true belief in an epistemically responsible way, yet the belief is true by fluke (which is always going to be possible so long as the epistemically responsible mechanism does not guarantee truth).

Now Smith believes that the person who gets the job has 10 coins in his pocket. And it turns out that the belief is true. — Bartricks

If that person is anyone other than Jones, IT IS NOT Smith's belief. That's the accounting malpractice.

It's a conflation between "the man with ten coins in his pocket" when examined as an inferred proposition(which is what Gettier mistakenly does), and "the man with ten coins in his pocket" when examined as Smith's inference from his own belief.

They are not the same thing. They do not have the same truth conditions. Therefore, they do not have the same meaning. That much is clear. In Smith's belief "the person..." refers to Jones, and only Jones. When regarding a general proposition, "the person" could refer to anyone and everyone who has ten coins in his pocket and gets the job.

We're taking account of Smith's belief.

Salva veritate.

Smith's belief is that Jones is the man with ten coins in his pocket who will get the job. That belief is false. No problem for JTB. — creativesoul

Have the decency to read my example. In my example Jones gets the job and Smith's belief is true and justified but not knowledge.

If that person is anyone other than Jones, — creativesoul

Can you read??? First - no, you're just plain wrong. But second, even if you're not - read. my. variation.

In my variation Jones - Jones - gets the job and the belief is true and yet isn't knowledge.

You're wrong - read all about it.

I have not carefully read your examples. Let's stick to Gettier, for now. Resolve that first. Then we can move on.

Have the decency to read my example. I — Bartricks

Likewise. Have the decency to at least offer valid objection to what I've offered here tonight.

I have not carefully read your examples. — creativesoul

read them then. Have some bloody manners and read them. I read your junk and now I have to wash my eyes.

Read them and see how easy it is to refute you.

No.

You need to deal with this properly first. I love these problems. I'd be more than happy to discuss your own barn facades or whatever other Gettier style example you'd like to provide. After you deal with what I've put forth here...

Easy question.

Since Smith believes that Jones will get the job, and since Smith believes that Jones is the person with ten coins in his pocket...

Who... exactly... is Smith thinking about, who is Smith's belief about, when he infers 'the person with ten coins in his pocket will get the job"?

Who?

:brow:

Have some bloody manners and read them. — Bartricks

Pots and kettles.

Have done - that's the point!! You seem to think you have a stunningly good point - that Smith's belief about the occupier of the roles trouser content rigidly designates Jones.

a) it doesn't

b) even if it did, it is a piece of cake to come up with variations where Smith's belief is clearly about Jones and is true and is justified and yet fails to qualify as knowledge.

you're just plain wrong. — Bartricks

Blather...

You've not offered a valid objection to what I've offered. Hand waving won't cut it. Bald assertions won't do either.

Read. Me. Read what I wrote in reply to you. Don't just arrogantly ignore it and keep repeating your silly point.

It's a silly point. As I explain in my replies to you. Replies you don't bother reading.

Read them.

You've not offered a valid objection to what I've offered. Hand waving won't cut it. Bald assertions won't do either. — creativesoul

And you have no manners. Read my replies. Actually read them and stop just saying I have no objections. Hundreds of bloody words of replies to you - hundreds of words of objections that you don't bother reading. Unbelievable!

Read them and learn a thing or two.