More on Gettier: Accounting for Donnellan

John left a very thoughtful comment on a previous entry about Gettier. Following Donnellan, John presents two possible readings of (1) The man who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket. One reading is called "referential and the other is "attributive." I don't think either one creates a problem for my analysis of Gettier cases, though itdoes force me to clarify and elaborate upon my argument. If we take Smith to be using "The man who gets the job" in the referential sense, then (as John observes) what Smith says is true. It would mean that (1) is semantically equivalent to (2) Jones has ten coins in his pocket (3) The man whom I believe will get the job has ten coins in his pocket (4) The man whom I refer to as "the man who gets the job" has ten coins in his pocket. (2)-(4) are all justified true beliefs held by Smith. Thus, under a referential reading, (1) is a justified true belief held by Smith. However, a fact which John overlooked is that, in this case, (1) is also propositional knowledge, because Smith knows (2)-(4). Smith knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith knows that the person he refers to as "The man who gets the job" has ten coins in his pocket, and that the man whom he believes will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. So, if Smith is using (1) in the referential sense, there is no Gettier problem. Next there is the attributive reading, in which case (1) presumably means: (5) There is an x such that x will get the job. (I.e., somebody will get the job) (6) For every x and every y, if both x and y will get the job, then x is y. (No more than one person will get the job.) (7) Anyone who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket. As John says, this reading of (1) is also true. However, as my initial argument implies, Smith has no justification for this belief. He is justified in believing (5) and (6), but not (7). I don't think Smith has this belief at all, and I do not think this is what Smith means when he utters (1). This is why I say Smith's belief is de re, not de dicto. Smith's belief, as entailed by (1), and which I claim is false, is this: (8) There is an x such that x will get the job. (9) For every x and every y, if both x and y will get the job, then x is y. (10) X has ten coins in his pocket. (11) Jones is X. This might be called a de re attributive reading. I do not suppose that Smith means (8)-(11) when he says (1); I only suppose that, in so far as (1) is an attributive expression of Smith's belief, that belief entails (8)-(11). I would say Smith is capable of using (1) sincerely to mean (8)-(10) only because he believes (11) in conjuction with (8)-(10). In sum, (1) can be taken in a referential sense, in which case it is both a justified true belief and a case of propositional knowledge; or it can be taken in a de dicto attributive sense, in which case it is not justified, or in a de re attributive sense, in which it is false. None of these readings supports the claim that there is a Gettier problem. On the contrary, as I maintain, there is no such problem to speak of. P.S. Unfortunately, this post does not mark a return to regular blogging. I'm still short on time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Argument For Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will.  Incompatibilism is the idea that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.  There's been a lot of discussion over which view is correct.  What's remarkable about the debate isn't so much the stubbornness or passion which has been exhibited by this or that party, but the fact that the very terms of the debate are controversial.  There is a great deal of confusion about what the key issues in the debate are and how we should be talking about them.  As a result, there is a meta-debate within the debate itself.  You cannot engage in the debate without also engaging in a debate about the debate--about what issues are at stake and about how the issues should be framed.  So here's what I want to do:  I want to explain why I think incompatibilists are doing a very bad job of framing the debate, and also why compatibilism is the most reasonable option on the t...
Read more

Sam Harris and the Moral Realism/Moral Relativism Myth

There is a popular misconception that, if you are not a moral realist, you are a moral relativist. Yet, most non-theistic professional philosophers may be neither. As I'll explain, I prefer a variety of anti-realism called moral noncognitivism. First, I want to discuss the moral realism/moral relativism myth. Moral realists believe in objective truths about right and wrong, whereas moral relativists believe that moral truths are subjective, or limited by the beliefs and values of particular communities and cultures. Moral relativists are people who say, for example, that genital mutilation isn't absolutely or universally wrong--it's just wrong for some people. Moral realists respond, "No, genital mutilation really is [or, perhaps, really isn't] wrong, for all people and all times--all things being equal." This is usually how the issue is framed in popular culture, particularly in debates over atheism and the role of religion in society. It is not uncommo...
Read more

Luke Skywalker and Rey: Comparing Character Arcs

My second viewing of The Force Awakens only reinforced my admiration.  I'm very impressed by Rey as a character, and so I want to respond to the prevalent criticism that she does not have a satisfying character arc.  I think she stands up better than many people think.  To prove it, let's compare her arc to Luke's in the original Star Wars, Episode 4: A New Hope.   Luke and Rey each have two inner conflicts dealing with the themes of loyalty and trust, but in Rey's case, the conflicts converge and are developed in a more dramatic and I think satisfying way. At the start of Episode IV: A New Hope , Luke wants to be loyal to his aunt and uncle, but also wants to follow his own dreams.  This is his first inner conflict.  His dreams are somewhat vague at first: He wants to get off Tatooine, join the academy, be heroic, etc.  When Ben Kenobi tells him his father was a Jedi Knight killed by Darth Vader, his motivation becomes more focused: He wants to joi...
Read more