I literally opened the thread with this line:

I would like to have a discussion with Corvus about if the logic used here is actually logical, or if it is perhaps fallacious.

I'm not hiding my intentions. I'm not being secretive. I've been very straight forward and transparent.

P->Q and Not Q -> Not P TF values is exactly the same in the truth table in one of my Logic book here. If P -> Q is false then Not Q -> Not P is false. And all the other cases are True.

No one said you were secretive. But once the points were made in the posts, you could sit and think for yourself, and get the points if your intention was to learn something. You didn't have to keep on going drumming up the crowds for claiming right or wrong on someone's idea, after all what was passing trivial comment in a post. It just feels there is very little point in the bizarre attempt of the repeating the same thing, and from learning point of view.

My point was that if the case was Deduction, then denying antecedent is fallacy (that is what internet says), but if it is Induction, then denying antecedent is not fallacy. Did you take that into consideration?

I said I wanted to resolve a disagreement we had about basic logic. We resolved it. You and I now both agree on this question of basic logic - denying the antecedent is invalid in basic deductive logic.

I don't know why you suddenly seem so hostile to me here, we've acccomplished the goal we set out to accomplish. I'm happy about it. Are you not?

If you achieved what you planed to achieve, whatever it might be, I am fine with that.
There is nothing wrong for someone to be wrong. People keep learning and changing their views and ideas. If one was right on a point, that doesn't make him a teacher or the greatest philosopher in history. Important thing is, that one keeps learning and improving one's knowledge.

That's lovely bro, I'm really glad we could come to agree on this.

No probs mate. Jgill said he is not believing with this discussions keep going on here, so there must be folks thinking that we are having stupid conversation. So did I in some respect. I have not agreed with your claim I was wrong on something. I said yes to come to closure on the discussion. So, if you still want to make clear what your point was, then you better let me know about it in the private message. I will wait you there for your exact point what you think is unclear.

You've already agreed it was a fallacious argument. You were in that thread telling me that I should read your posts over and over again until I agree with you, and it turned out in the end that all of that deep, intense arrogance you had was spent telling me to read a Fallacy over and over again.

There's nothing that's unclear hear. You made a bad argument, you were cocky about it, you were a jerk about it when people told you they disagree with your argument, and now you've finally seen that you were wrong. You were a jerk, and you were wrong. There's not a whole lot more to say about it.

I would have preferred you to end this thread more graciously. You could have said "Thank you, I understand now why that argument I made was fallacious". I don't know why you chose to start insulting me in this thread instead of just graciously acknowledging your error, learning from it, and moving on. You really brought the tone down. Completely unnecessary.

What has happened in this thread is a microcosm of what I warned about in your own thread. @AmadeusD put his trust in ChatGPT and because of this came to believe logical fallacies. Like a human, ChatGPT made an error and recovered from that error without ever admitting that it made an error, and AmadeusD follows it almost step-by-step. Here’s what I said:

It seems to me that this is the big liability for us, namely that we don't know what it is that ChatGPT knows and what it is that ChatGPT doesn't know. We can attempt to verify its claims and quantify its accuracy, but probably a lot of what is being done and what will be done is taking ChatGPT at its word. — Leontiskos

I don't know why you chose to start insulting me in this thread instead of just graciously acknowledging your error, learning from it, and moving on. — flannel jesus

So there's something for you to learn about variations in human nature.

Gaslighting is strongly associated with narcissism.

I didn't make fallacious comment.
Please note this point. The internet says "It is fallacious to deny antecedent." But it is only fallacious in deductive syllogistic case. We have been talking about an inductive case. It is not fallacious to deny antecedent in inductive logic.

Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist." — Corvus

What do you think the word "deduce" means Corvus? What relationship do you think there might be between "deduce" and "deductive logic"?

Yeah, not the forum's finest hour. — Banno

No, but it is perhaps an instructive hour. We witnessed two individuals who are extremely confident and yet demonstrated that they do not understand even the most elementary logical inferences (@Corvus and ). This is a good reminder that the following thought cannot be taken for granted, “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.

So there's something for you to learn about variations in human nature. — wonderer1

Eh, the case could be reasonably made that this correction should have occurred in private.

The poor neck-beard can't afford heating. :worry: — Banno

It must be still winter chill season in England.

What do you think the word "deduce" means Corvus? What relationship do you think there might be between "deduce" and "deductive logic"? — flannel jesus

I understand deduce as logical thinking from A priori or analytic concepts. Induction means that you come to logical conclusion via external empirical observations.

What do you think the word "deduce" means Corvus? What relationship do you think there might be between "deduce" and "deductive logic"? — flannel jesus

Here is a question for you. Is "I think therefore I am" a deductive or inductive statement?
How about "If it rains, the ground will be wet." ????

The first is a *piece* of a deductive argument - including one premise, and the conclusion - and the second is a premise that you could use, if you wished, in a deductive argument.

Induction means that you come to logical conclusion via external empirical observations. — Corvus

That's right, which is why you calling that logic inductive reasoning just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Inductive reasoning looks like this:

Sue's car is already here every morning when I arrive, so her shift probably starts before mine.

Inductive reasoning does not look like

a -> b
~a
therefore
~b

It's obviously fallacious deductively, but I haven't seen any good reason to think it's a good argument inductively either - or an inductive argument at all! Where's the induction? Where's the external empirical observation?

I am not sure on your answers. Where is analytic part in the statements?

See? We don't even agree on the statements were deductive or inductive, and were trying to argue if they were true.

Here is a question for you. Is "I think therefore I am" a deductive or inductive statement? — Corvus

It is intended as deduction. It's not, I was thinking and hey, look I was also existing. Then I tracked many instance of thinking and existing was happening, so it's probable that they are connected causally or something like that.

Descartes was saying given that I am thinking this presumes I am. I could not think if I did not exist. It is part and part with ANY COGNITIVE ACTIVITY at all or any action on my part.

One can get into the issue of whether the 'I' is getting snuck into his deduction, but it is NOT deductive argument and 'therefore' is a term talking about logical inference and not at all suggesting that thinking leads ontologically to being. Nor is it asserting that thinking causes existence.

And if you thought it was about deduction why in goodness name did you spend so much time calling it Modus Ponens, which is deduction? And even when you finally acknowledged that it wasn't modus tollens, did you continue to write deduction symbolic logic rather than using inductive reasoning.

And then why would you go into Flannel Jesus's motives, when it is so clear that being not wrong has led you to the most circuitous avoidance and distractions now in two threads.

Someone else could potentially chastize FJ for pursuing this, but it makes not the slightest sense for you to.

Further, if he thinks you are wrong, but you can't see it or admit it, then the issue is not closed. He can continue to wonder (against great odds) if he missed something. And when asked, you can say whatever that is.

That whole line was just gaslighting.

We don't even agree on the statements were deductive or inductive — Corvus

Right, we don't agree because you're just choosing not to understand things. You literally used the word 'deduce'. Of course we don't agree if you've just decided you're going to disagree - it's free to just contradict everything, it takes no effort to just say "that's wrong, that's wrong, that's wrong". But the word 'deduce' has a meaning, and your provided logic *clearly* doesn't involve any induction.

Analytic statement means that the statement itself already has its meaning, or the premises already contains the meaning of the conclusion.

Inductive statement means that both premise and conclusion are based on the empirical events or facts.

I chose DEDUCE to mean, that we have no empirical element of observation in the statement. It was used in loose sense at the time. But here we are into the rigid meaning of Deductive and Inductive statements.

that we have no empirical observation on the statement — Corvus

Right, which makes it once again clear that it's not an inductive argument. How are you going to make an inductive argument with no reference to any empirical observations?

Right, which makes it once again clear that it's not an inductive argument. How are you going to make an inductive argument with no reference to any empirical observations?
4 minutes ago — flannel jesus

That is still to be discussed and concluded. I am not sure 100% that is inductive or deductive statement. To me it is not a statement. It is grammatically incorrect to begin with.

I think~ has no content, no object. We don't know what I think means.
Who is "I" there by the way?

It is intended as deduction. It's not, I was thinking and hey, look I was also existing. Then I tracked many instance of thinking and existing was happening, so it's probable that they are connected causally or something like that. — Bylaw

It is a psychological statement. It is not deduction or induction. I have said that many times, but obviously you missed it.

And if you thought it was about deduction why in goodness name did you spend so much time calling it Modus Ponens, which is deduction? And even when you finally acknowledged that it wasn't modus tollens, did you continue to write deduction symbolic logic rather than using inductive reasoning. — Bylaw

I have tried with the different methods for logical analysis, which didn't suit the cogito for a logical analysis due to the fact it being a psychological statement. So the final conclusion was throwing out cogito into the bin for being a solipsistic subjective statement which is not fit for logical analysis.

That whole line was just gaslighting. — Bylaw

Sure, it just shows your whole mental operations and judgements are based on your volatile emotions and wild imaginations rather than facts and reasons.

Sue's car is already here every morning when I arrive, so her shift probably starts before mine.

Inductive reasoning does not look like — flannel jesus

That is definitely an inductive statement. It is never deductive statement for sure. The statement came from your experience and observations in the past. You clearly have no idea what deductive and inductive thinkings are. Herein seems to lie all the confusions.

That whole line was just gaslighting.
— Bylaw

Sure, it just shows your whole mental operations and judgements are based on your volatile emotions and wild imaginations rather than facts and reasons. — Corvus

Just more gaslighting.