[lit-ideas] Re: disimplications of "know" [a correction]
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:50:53 +0000 (GMT)
The nature of this correction is unclear to me, but it is not the case (afaik)
that "Some days ago, Donal posted links to the famous/infamous paper in
which Edmund Gettier provided several examples". No matter.
Dnl
Ldn
On Wednesday, 15 January 2014, 6:44, Richard Henninge
<RichardHenninge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Defeasing disimplications of "know" [(a correction
of) a correction]
----- Original Message -----
>From: Robert Paul
>To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:13 AM
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: disimplications of "know" [a correction]
>
>
>I could make [a] living out of sending corrections to my own posts. Here's
>the latest—an important one for it negates the one it corrects.
>
>
>*This is a strange conclusion. Some days ago, Donal posted links to the
>famous/infamous paper in which Edmund Gettier provided several examples of a
>person's having a justified true belief that most people would NOT count as
>cases of his knowing P, cases in which we WOULD [ not "would not"] say (most
>of us) that even though a person had a true, justified belief that P, she did
>not know it.
>
>
>Robert Paul
>
At least you didn't end with "or
not."
Richard Henninge
University of
Mainz
Other related posts:
