Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 13:44:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2c693c3334a9f30979d106f422d50d813730b989@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb0lj5$1c1kh$1@dont-email.me> <vb1o9g$1g7lq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 17:44:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="498679"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vb1o9g$1g7lq$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2093
Lines: 33

On 9/1/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/31/2024 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> *I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>>
>> knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
>> justification is sufficient reason to accept the
>> truth of the belief.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
>>
> 
> With a Justified true belief, in the Gettier cases
> the observer does not know enough to know its true
> yet it remains stipulated to be true.
> 
> My original correction to this was a JTB such that the
> justification necessitates the truth of the belief.
> 
> With a [Sufficiently Justified belief], it is stipulated
> that the observer does have a sufficient reason to accept
> the truth of the belief.
> 

But how does he get that?

Your definition is just more your your illogical assumptiom of the 
conclusion.

Thus, it doesn't actually handle the problem, but just shows that you 
dont actually understand the issue.

This is a fundamental problem with ANY logic based on observation. How 
do we know that an observation of the universe is actually "correct" and 
does not contain an error.