It's not raining and it's raining therefore it's not raining.. So yeah, it's "incoherent" in that its premises are inconsistent. — Michael
Candidly, there can't be any sensible doubt that the argument in the OP is valid for formal propositional logic. So in order for those who claim it is invalid to be correct, there must be more than one form of validity, and hence logical pluralism follows. — Banno
Yeah but it probably won't beat places like China and India given how much more lax their regulations are. Those are the countries they need to compete with. — Mr Bee
Has he suggested decreasing defense spending before? It sounds like he will just continue the status quo of the US being the biggest spender on defense by far. I think it appeals to his tough guy persona. — Mr Bee
There's only so much more drilling that can be done to reduce oil prices (contrary to what some on the right say the Biden administration is overseeing record production right now). Also contrary to what Trump says, there is little correlation between the price of other goods the price of oil and gas. — Mr Bee
This is in Europe's interest, though. Relying on other countries for defense is nothing other than giving up one's sovereignty. This is exactly why I view Europe as little more than Uncle Sam's vassals. — Tzeentch
The EU should decouple from the US, and instead seek engagement with continental powers like China. — Tzeentch
If you're in any way geopolitically conscious, you will keep the US very far from your door. — Tzeentch
1. As the U.S. scales back on environmental regulations, the EU could solidify its global leadership in climate action. This moment could further the European Green Deal and enhance the EU's position as a hub for green technology innovation and investment. By strengthening partnerships with like-minded regions (e.g., Canada, Japan), the EU could lead a coalition to tackle climate change and attract global investors focused on sustainability.
2. The EU could also capitalize on a more protectionist U.S. approach by attracting foreign investors looking for stable markets.
3. The EU can leverage its more stable stance to exert greater influence in institutions like the UN, WHO, and WTO. By doing so, the EU could shape international policy in ways that align with its standards on trade, human rights, and environmental protection.
4. Given Trump's prior skepticism toward NATO and multilateral security, the EU could take a stronger stance on European defense and autonomy. This might involve further funding for the European Defence Fund and strengthening PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation).
5. Policies may lead to a U.S. shift away from renewable energy production, possibly leading to increased oil and gas prices. The EU may want to fast-track its transition to renewables to mitigate potential price shocks and reduce reliance on external energy sources, especially in a time of political instability. — Benkei
The average American doesn't want to be ruled by a woman. I never expected their sexism to be that severe. — javi2541997
Is a software licence in a natural language or in a formal language? — Banno
I don't know what you mean. Example? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Why would I? Every argument is its own thing. If the conclusion deductively follows from the premises then the argument is valid — Michael
This is just what the word "valid" means. I think you think it means something else. — Michael
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. — Michael
2. An argument is valid if there is no interpretation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false. — Michael
In this case, there is no interpretation in which all the premises are true. — TonesInDeepFreeze
The argument:
1. A -> ~A
A
therefore ~A
valid
Another argument:
2. A -> ~A
A
therefore A
valid — TonesInDeepFreeze
The fact that the premises are inconsistent doesn't vitiate that the argument is valid. Actually the fact that the premises are inconsistent entails that the argument is valid.
(2) A conclusion itself is valid if and only if it is true in all interpretations. An argument is valid if and only if there are no interpretations in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, so — TonesInDeepFreeze
An Argument is valid if and only if it would be contradictory for the conclusion to be false if all of the premises are true.[ — Hanover
How are you getting A as a conclusion? — frank
think you're treating A -> ~A as if it's hypothetically true. They're just declaring it to be necessarily false. — frank
Your OP (original post) and subsequent posts provide almost no specific information. They include a vague and undetailed description of the elements of your ECMT and it's supporting information. You claim it is testable and makes specific predictions but you don't describe any specific hypotheses or how they might be tested. — T Clark
The OP uses propositional logic. In propositional logic, the argument is valid. — Banno
Not the sort of thing I had in mind. Nor, frankly, am I inclined to go into details here, where simple substitution is apparently contentious. More agreement is needed before we might proceed to such other disagreements. — Banno
A thread of mine attempted amongst other things to discuss plausible cases in which modus ponens might not apply. It was lost in misunderstanding, which is a shame but perhaps not a surprise. — Banno
Nothing says that we may not substitute A for φ and ~A for ψ. Hence, we may. Indeed, that's kinda the point.
But this is trivial stuff! Why don't you already know this? — Banno
No, it's the DEFINITION of 'modus ponens'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Modus ponens doesn't require that a conditional is not contradictory, nor that the "major" premise (which must be a conditional) is not contradictory, nor that the "minor" premise (which might or might not itself be a conditional) is not contradictory, nor that the premises together are not contradictory — TonesInDeepFreeze