>On Thursday, 5 November 2015, 12:37, Walter C. Okshevsky
<wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
Neither a competent lawyer nor a true philosopher is he who constructs
grotesquely defamatory accusations on the grounds of mere supposition and
suspicion. And he surely also remains innocent of the pedagogical virtues and
basic civility.>
Perhaps I got this wrong but I thought Walter made it fairly clear, in
exchanges many moons ago, that an anti-JTB theory of knowledge, like Popper's,
plays no part in Walter's teaching of knowledge in terms of JTB (and even that
it is outside Walter's interest to make it play any such part). If Walter
thinks my impression is wrong, he should perhaps make this explicit, and we can
all trawl back to see whether this is consistent with everything he has
previously written.
It's not a "pedagogical virtue" btw to refer to some writer, as if their view
marks some distinct advance that invalidates some previous view, without
indicating - or "making it explicit" - how their view does this (or even might
do this). This is akin to refutation-by-recommending-further-reading which is
no proper refutation at all but a mere "promissory argument".
There was nothing defamatory in my post (never mind "grotesquely" so), and it
ill behoves Walter to suggest as much while seeing fit to lecture others on
"basic civility". If Walter is under the impression my post was defamatory I
suggest he consult a competent lawyer to put him straight.
Dnl
