Fifteen days ago...

You can choose bravery at any moment.
— flannel jesus

Not to mention increase his competence at using logic. All for the low low price of admitting to having been a doofus. — wonderer1

In retrospect it isn't courage that is lacking, so much as integrity. Seemingly, it's so easy to say, "I didn't know what I was talking about.", but seemingly impossible for Corvus.

I did try discussing philosophy with you. You've perhaps forgotten. It had to do with cogito in a number of ways, including your incorrect interpretation of 'therefore'' no shame in that, English not being your native language. But I found your responses were not grounded in either philosophy or my posts. I think how people behave in a philosophy forum matters, but it seems in this case, you have no interest in feedback. Now I know that. Perhaps you haven't noticed how many people have arrived at very similar conclusions about you here. And people with a variety of differing opinions about the cogito. But, yeah, that's all probably a coincidence.

In any case, I thought you were moving forward. I am, in any case. I'll be ignoring you. I suggest you actually move forward yourself. Perhaps we'll have a lovely interaction on some other issue after a break.

Take care.

put his trust in ChatGPT — Leontiskos

Neither did I trust, nor use ChatGPT. lol.

to believe logical fallacies. — Leontiskos

I didn't come to 'believe' anything.

“This is a philosophy forum, therefore everyone meets the minimum level of logical competence.” There needs to be better “handshaking”; a more cautious appraisal of the interlocutor’s competence. If this is not done then a great deal of time will be wasted on everyone’s part. — Leontiskos

No one thinks this. Half the people here(including me, even in this exact case) note clearly and honestly what they are not ept in various ways. I actually told you, categorically, I don't know formal logic and stand behind nothing i posted.

What I think the forum needs is a reduction in the onanist tendancies of the self-obsessed in talking down to other forum-goers just trying to figure shit out. The immense failure of your comprehension in these comments leads me to think I am talking to closed ears, though.

It seems like there's been quite a bit of back and forth regarding whether denying the antecedent is always a fallacy. The confusion primarily arises from the distinction between simple conditional statements (P → Q) and biconditional statements (P ↔ Q).

To clarify, the fallacy of denying the antecedent applies strictly to conditional statements (P → Q). That is, from "If P then Q" and "¬P," one cannot validly conclude "¬Q." A classic counterexample:

• P → Q: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet."
• ¬P: "It is not raining."
• ¬Q?: "The ground is not wet." (Invalid inference—something else, like a sprinkler, could have made it wet.)

However, in the case of a biconditional (P ↔ Q), the reasoning changes because P and Q must always share the same truth value. If P is true, Q must be true, and if P is false, Q must also be false. This is captured formally by the tautology:

(A⊃B)⊃(¬A⊃¬B)

This expresses that if A implies B, then ¬A implies ¬B, which holds true only when A ↔ B (i.e., a biconditional). This is why, in a biconditional statement, denying one side allows us to deny the other.

For those who want to see this logically broken down, here's a truth table visualization:

https://truthtablegenerator.org/#(A⊃B)⊃(¬A⊃¬B)

It’s important to be precise when discussing logical fallacies, as they depend on the exact logical structure in question. Hope this helps clarify!

this thread started because corvus was applying denying the antecedent like it was a general rule. He even gave an explicit example in his first few posts.

If it's raining, the ground is wet, he said. A fair enough implication, no reason to reject this.

Then he says, therefore if it's not raining, the ground is not wet.

The man completely forgot that there's other ways for the ground to get wet. Maybe the sprinklers were on, maybe someone just watered the lawn.

So what corvus failed to realize was that, if a implies b, that doesn't always mean not a implies not b. That's why his thinking is terribly fallacious.

Quine on modalities... modalities resist substitutivity for reasons like this... swapping the modality in this case brings a falsehood.



That was an excellent first post. I could learn a lot from you.

Quine on modalities... modalities resist substitutivity for reasons like this... swapping the modality in this case brings a falsehood. — DifferentiatingEgg

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about buddy.

It’s important to be precise when discussing logical fallacies, as they depend on the exact logical structure in question. Hope this helps clarify! — Mrinmoy Roy

Your description seems to be based on the classical logic. Have you read about Relevance Logic and also the Entailment Logic, which use axiomatic proofs in the inferences?

I am going to keep it short, and if you want further discussion open a new thread on the topic, and I will engage with you, since FJ is one of the interlocutors I don't engage with on any philosophical topics.

You can read this article, if you are further interested on the topic before opening a new thread.

That's fine, you can pick up Quine any time to learn... you said keep it brief if someone agrees with you. I kept it brief.