It’s just that in order to make your statement here correct then you need to say “according to Gettier”
I happen to think you completely misrepresent Gettier.
When you say “according to you” and then draw a conclusion that I didn’t explicitly draw, that’s a textbook straw man.
First, I did not actually say “according to you”, but “according to your philosophy”.
Second, no, the thing you describe is not a strawman fallacy. It is not a fallacy at all.
Third, your “textbook definition” is wrong. See, let’s say, “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” (
Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)): “A variation of ignoratio elenchi , known under the name of the straw man fallacy, occurs when an opponent’s point of view is distorted in order to make it easier to refute.”.
“Opponent’s point of view” is not merely what he has said explicitly. It includes hidden assumptions and propositions that can be logically inferred from stated and hidden assumptions.
In fact, the way in which you try to argue is rather common, and has been ridiculed in a dialogue “Thermippos” (
The Joy of Curmudgeonry: Thermippos — The Complete Dialogue).
I’d say you should stop doing so.
Not at all. My base view is as a stoic. I have no emotional involvement in any of my philosophical beliefs. I hold them because they make the better argument as being part of objective reality than their rivals.
I am pretty sure you are not in position to know that.
You can know that you
think you “have no emotional involvement”, you can know you think that would be good. But it is much harder to know if you have actually achieved it.
And if you are wrong in thinking you have achieved such perfection, it becomes harder to achieve it, for then one is tempted not to take special precautions.
Relax, I’m not trying to personally attack you. No need for the passive-aggressives and well-poisoning.
Gently and respectfully, I think emotional attachment is why so many want to defend the classic and medieval approaches that are no longer widely taught
So, after accusing me of “poisoning the well” (without explaining, how) and claiming you are not trying to “personally attack” me, you do both?
As Wikipedia tells us (
Poisoning the well - Wikipedia), “Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.”.
And here you are offering the unsubstantiated claim that whoever defends philosophy you want to ignore is “emotional attached”. And you are offering it as an excuse for not having to listen and respond to those defences.
It is fallacious.
You also end up looking as if you expect some privileges, unjustifiably asymmetrical rules.
Sorry, we don’t play like that.
