[lit-ideas] Re: Some Gettier examples
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:44:46 +0100
Example 3It's not the everydayness but the logical ineptitude: they fall
into the category of "logic-chopping" e.g. the belief that would be true is
not identical with the belief actually held, even though it may be
otherwise equivalent up to a point of specificity or for some other
purposes. E.g. the belief *that Y* is red-headed and in Paris is not
identical with "There is *some person* who is red-headed and in Paris",
even though the latter can be deduced from the former; and when Y is not in
Paris the latter belief can only be true because some *other person than Y* is
red-headed and in Paris - so it is a logical error to think that, where one
believes the latter because one believes the former, and the former is
false, that we nevertheless can have JTB in the latter merely because the
latter proves true on a basis entirely outside our knowledge. We may as
well say we can have JTB in anything that is true even though our grounds
for its truth are mistaken: but this would strip JTB down into mere TB.
*Well, and that is more or less the point I wanted to make. The 'examples'
were made up by me, but if you compare with the first actual Gettier
example, the case is precisely the same.
O.K.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> These examples are so feeble it is too much effort to explain why.
>
> *Perhaps just because the incidents are of every-day, not to say banal
> nature ? We are not then encouraged to feel that we are participating in a
> difficult and momentous 'thought experiment.'
>
> O.K.
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> These examples are so feeble it is too much effort to explain why. There
>> must be much better Gettier examples. These examples are so feeble I find
>> it hard to believe they are Gettier examples at all.
>>
>> Donal
>> Logician to the stars
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 13 March 2015, 9:24, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Example 1
>>
>> Smith, Jones and Williams are having a job interview. Smith has been
>> assured by the interviewer that Jones will get the job. On the basis of
>> this, Smith has formed a justified belief in the proposition that he will
>> get the job. It turns out that the job has gone to Williams instead.
>> "Unbeknownst to Smith," Williams too is male.
>>
>>
>> Example 2
>>
>> Smith met Celia and saw that she had a new hair colour, red. The next day
>> he called her on the mobile and she told him that she is in Paris. On the
>> basis of this, Smith formed a justified belief that the woman who is in
>> Paris has red hair. In fact, Celia lied to him and she wasn't in Paris at
>> all. However, "unbeknownst to Smith" Genevieve, who lives in Paris, has red
>> hair.
>>
>> ****************************
>> Are these really examples of "justified true belief that is not
>> knowledge", or perhaps there is something fishy about the way the
>> propositions 'he will get the job' and 'the woman who is in Paris has red
>> hair' are formulated ?
>>
>> O.K.
>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
