"Report" implies that we are talking to someone other than the farmer. So we report in the first way. If we were talking to the farmer, he would obviously not recognize what we would say. But to repeat to him the words he would use would suggest that we share his belief, so I can't use those. Before I can say anything to him, I have to ensure that we both understand the reference of the sentence. I must correct his mistake. “You know that cow in the field? Well actually it’s a piece of cloth.” or “I’m afraid that cow in the field is actually a piece of cloth” would do the trick. — Ludwig V
I understand the concerns with clarity, particularly when it comes to expressing one's views in a philosophical discussion with other philosophers. We can be a picky bunch. However, I no longer share any deep concerns at all over these matters we're currently discussing. To me, it is as plain and simple as the nose on my face. Gettier's Case I has everything to do with reference. That being said...
Sure, we could inform the farmer of his mistake by doing as you suggest or something similar. That would do the trick, if that amounts to allowing the farmer to become aware that he had false belief, unbeknownst to himself at time t1.
I'm afraid I'm one of those who people who see every sentence as a (potential) speech-act so the context, including the audience, always needs to be considered. — Ludwig V
Of course. That's a beneficial consequence stemming from your namesake's insistence upon looking at how we use language in order to ascertain the meaning. I do not foresee that as being a potential problem here.
I don't understand your diagnosis of Gettier's case 1. I think you've misremembered it. — Ludwig V
Well, that surprises me.
Okay. I just looked it up and you're completely right, I did misremember. My apologies, but the basic objection still stands. I just mixed up who Smith believed would get the job. Easy enough to correct. Thank you for pointing that out! Much better to report the Case correctly, especially given this discussion.
So, Smith justifiably believed that Jones would get the job, and he had counted the coins in Jones' pocket earlier. Gettier invoked the rules of entailment to have Smith go from "Jones is the man who will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his pocket" to "the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job". Smith got the job instead of Jones, and unbeknownst to Smith he too had ten coins in his pocket, so "the man with ten coins in his pocket", which is what Gettier reports as Smith's belief, turns out to be true even though Jones did not get the job, and Smith believed that Jones would.
Treating Smith's belief as a naked proposition is to change what sorts of things would make Smith's belief true. Smith did not believe that he would get the job. He believed that Jones would get the job. So, in Smith's mind the person referred to by "the man with ten coins in his pocket" was Jones, and no one else. Smith got the job, contrary to his own belief.
The difference between Smith's belief and the proposition when treated as a naked one is clear. The proposition would be true if any man with ten coins in their pocket got the job. Smith's belief is not about any man. It is about Jones, and no one else. Smith's belief would have been true only if, only when, and only because Jones got the job.
If I understand you rightly (and I'm not sure I have), your diagnosis of Case 2 is complicated by the fact that "P or Q" is true iff P is true or Q is true. So, according to Gettier and me, if Smith believes that P, they are justified in believing that P or Q. But, as you say P is false, yet, as Gettier tells us, Q is true. Smith's justification relies on P and the truth relies on Q. It's that mismatch that creates the problem. My solution to this example is to point out that Smith's justification fails and so he cannot know P or Q, which can be summarized as "no false lemmas".
Well, it doesn't seem to me that my diagnosis of Case II is complicated
by the fact that "P or Q" is true if P or Q is true. Rather, that is precisely what makes the case.
Smith believed the disjunction was true because Jone's owned a Ford(because P was true). The disjunction was not true because P was true. It was true because Q was true. Smith's belief was false.
(P or Q) does not adequately take Smith's belief into account. Just like the first case, Smith's belief is not equivalent to the naked disjunction (Por Q). Rather, Smith believed that P or Q was true because P. Leaving out that last bit (because P) is to provide an accounting malpractice of Smith's belief. It is not equivalent to the naked proposition/disjunction.