[lit-ideas] Re: Some Gettier examples

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:16:51 +0100

No, but neither is "the man who has ten coins in his pocket"." It's just
that we are struck by the improbability of another man at that place and
time having 10 coins in his pocket, while there is nothing improbable about
another woman in Paris having red hair. But that should make no difference
as to logical structure.

O.K.



On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Agreed-  much would depend on how you read the so-called definite
> descriptor. Is the expression “the woman in Paris” a unique identifier or
> not?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* 13 March 2015 15:02
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Some Gettier examples
>
>
>
> Because Williams has to correspond to 'he' and not to 'she'. :)
>
>
>
> Okay, the first example is really just a joke, but compare my example 2
> with Gettier's example 1. As far as I can see, the structure is same.
>
>
>
> O.K.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In ex2, it depends on what you take the scope of the det to be (the ‘the’
> in the woman in paris)
>
> In ex1 I fail to understand what Williams’ sex dos to the claim you made.
>
> In general Gettier examples are statable without any use of those, e.g. as
> in x knows that p, if p- q or p, q & not p. hence x both knows p and cannot
> know that p, since he’d know p & not p. reminder K is under closure by
> connectives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* 13 March 2015 11:24
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Some Gettier examples
>
>
>
> 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: