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. — wonderer1

It was just to point out that comment was emotionally volatile in nature, which totally disregards the facts or logics.

Yes, i You need to read that post again. You just agreed with him, while saying it shows all these confusions on his part.

I can say anything I feel correct — Corvus

Says it all :roll:

I can say anything I feel correct
— Corvus

Projection, anyone.

Ah, yes, that was an amazing explanation. Even down the accuracy of the different ways that short sentence can be read, given its confused grammar.

Says it all :roll: — jgill

Isn't it the first principle on which philosophical discussions are based? Freedom of thinking and expressing on what you think is correct on the subject? Do you condone dishonesty, pretension and uncontrolled emotional volatility in the discussions?

No, but it is perhaps an instructive hour. — Leontiskos

There isn't much to instruct here. Not because there is no topic, but because there is no student. See the 100% certainty thread.

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. — Bylaw

There is not much helping people who don't want to understand. Descartes invited us in meditation by writing His. Some people don't want to meditate, but instead want to autistically analyse the text to find syllogistic flaws, not knowing that language does not exhaust thought and there is only so much logic can do for them — but perhaps they have "aphantasia".
There is criticism to be given to Descartes, but his philosophy does have a solid system.
The most common criticism to Descartes besides naïve realism from people who can't conceive hypotheticals, is extreme, unbounded skepticism (such as doubting that any action requires existence). Those who do that however, are not willing to face the consequences of their unbounded skepticism. Either they do so, or accept Descartes argument. But they want to have the cake and eat it.

Do you condone dishonesty and pretension? — Corvus

When it amuses. Keep going. :cool:

:rofl:

When it amuses. Keep going. :cool: — jgill

It was a simple and straight forward question to yourself, since you publicly objected to one's free thinking and speaking what one feels correct on the philosophical topics.

Do you condone dishonesty — Corvus

You clearly do. Look at this post by you.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894247

You chose to group the quote like that, instead of how it should obviously be grouped in my original post

Inductive reasoning looks like this:

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

And then I said

Inductive reasoning does not look like

a -> b
~a
therefore
~b — flannel jesus

So why did you do that? Why did you group the wrong parts of my post together, in order to criticise me for something I didn't say? Why are you dishonest?

There is not much helping people who don't want to understand. Descartes invited us in meditation by writing His. — Lionino

and viewed as a meditation or exploration it's very interesting. I'm certainly not critical of Corvus' behavior because he's skeptical about the cogito. I'm skeptical about the cogito. Though I'm not skeptical because denying the antecedent shows there's a problem or some of his jumping from deduction to induction and pretending he was using induction all along. I think the problem with the cogito is that it allows for an assumption, at least potenially of the 'I'. But this has been said by others and in greater detail. But I don't think that makes it useless or simply wrong. Someone needed to do what he did and it's easy to post-Descartes take shots at it.

Those who do that however, are not willing to face the consequences of their unbounded skepticism. Either they do so, or accept Descartes argument. But they want to have the cake and eat it. — Lionino

I think this is often true. Being unconvinced is safer ground than mounting arguments that demonstrate one's skepticism is correct. There's a lot of fruit of the poison tree in philosophy forums.

Though if we view these also as exploratory, they can be a fine part of a discussion.

So why did you do that? Why did you group the wrong parts of my post together, in order to criticise me for something I didn't say? Why are you dishonest? — flannel jesus

The questions wasn't for you. It was for jgill. You said that you wanted to learn about Logic, and asked for my help, hence I tried. Jgill didn't seem to have a clue what he was talking about, so asked him a question on what he said. None of your business.

it's my business that you misquote me dishonestly. Why wouldn't that be my business?

I asked for your help to learn about logic? Are you sure that's what I said?

From your uncalled for private message to me, that is what anyone would interpret your intentions in the message, which proved otherwise in the OP.

But this emotionally fuelled carry-on is just waste of time. There is no meaning or point to talk with you or any of the folks in your bandwagon. Bye.

My messages to you said I want you involved in the conversation so that we could get to the bottom of our disagreement. The argument you produced was based on a Fallacy, called Denying the Antecedent. You acknowledged the Fallacy, which means you helped me get to the bottom of our disagreement. That's exactly the help I wanted.

You haven't shown the least bit of competency in logic. I'm sure I have a lot to learn about logic, but not from you. If I ask someone to teach me stuff about logic, they'll have to know what "therefore" means as a bare minimum.

I didn't know you didn't know even the difference between deductive and inductive cases in logic. When it was clear that was the case, I have pointed it out to you, in which case you never paid attention, and just claimed I was wrong.

Our agreement in your private message was to put it across to OP, so some other Logic expert could help us. I never claimed I was a logic expert.

But instead of that happening, you kept on claiming I was wrong, and the folks in your bandwagon joined in to make senseless emotional ad hominem comments with rolling eyes and gaslighting statements.

So I just concluded that it would be best we leave it there, and go our own ways. It would be better time spent to engage in some other topics with the likely minded folks or just do some readings??? I will leave you to it. I tried my best to help you. But perhaps it didn't work out as we intended at first. We can always learn from all our doings, sayings, hearings and readings. ATB~

Deductive reasoning is when the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Inductive reasoning is when the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises but is nonetheless reasonable to infer.

For example, "if you don't stop shouting then I am going to turn the car around" doesn't necessarily entail that if the children stop shouting then the mother won't turn the car around, but it is nonetheless a reasonable inference. As such it is a case of inductive reasoning.

I didn't know you didn't know even the difference between deductive and inductive cases in logic. — Corvus

I do, lmao. You spent pages telling me I can find that modus ponens allows for denying the Antecedent in any basic logic book - you obviously thought that was a valid step in deductive reasoning. That's what basic logic books about symbolic logic are about - deductive reasoning.

You literally used the word "deduce". You criticise other people for being dishonest, but I can't see an ounce of honesty from you. The argument you provided is not an inductive argument. You said inductive arguments are about evidence from observations - not a word of the argument in question was about evidence or observations.

You don't have any kind of instinct or intuition for what logic actually looks like, how logic actually works. You said you'd go back and read one of your logic books - I think you'd really benefit from that.

I didn't know you didn't know even the difference between deductive and inductive cases in logic — Corvus

You misquoted him, and then you referred to this misquote as what led to your discovery he didn't understand. This was pointed out to you, and you seem to have opted not to actually check this. You seem emotionally volatile, but I do think you have the right to say what you feel is correct, even when you are this obviously confused or disingenuous.

@Corvus

(A -> B) -> (~A -> ~B) is false. "A -> B" is not biconditional implication (i.e., IFF): it means that if A is true, then you can infer B is also true.

If A is false, it is entirely possible for B to be true; because all you know is that when A is true, B is true but not that B can only be true when A is true.

To prove this, flannel jesus, you would need (A <-> B) -> (~A -> ~B).

If A is false, it is entirely possible for B to be true; — Bob Ross

Yes, this is entirely correct

You seem emotionally volatile, but I do think you have the right to say what you feel is correct, even when you are this obviously confused or disingenuous. — Bylaw

You keep repeating to the others the word by word what the others described your writings.

To prove this, flannel jesus, you would need (A <-> B) -> (~A -> ~B). — Bob Ross

Good point Bob.

Well, I certainly used your words in that post back to you. But there's no pattern. You misquoted Flannel Jesus, based your 'discovery' of 'his confusion' of deduction and induction on that misquote and that's all easy to check.

You don't have any kind of instinct or intuition for what logic actually looks like, how logic actually works. You said you'd go back and read one of your logic books - I think you'd really benefit from that. — flannel jesus

Thanks for your advice. I read a Logic book once long time ago, and am back to reading another one now. I am enjoying reading it. I wish you all the best.

Maybe I did, or maybe I didn't. People sometimes misquote. I am not going to waste more of my time going back to the old posts and start investigating for possible misquoting, just because you keep saying so. There is better things to do in life.

We have agreed to move on. Just wondering what your point is keep repeating the others' sayings word by word.

Maybe I did, or maybe I didn't. — Corvus

Ah, ok. For many people when they make a claim about another person, it actually matters to them if it was correct. It seems from what you write here, that you don't really care if what you said about Flannel Jesus was correct. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. People sometimes misquote. Which is, of course, true. Some who misquote and have this pointed out and have said negative things about someone based on that, think it is polite to see if that is the case, and perhaps retract what they said based on the misquote. Others don't care about such things.

Just wondering what your point is keep repeating the others' sayings word by word. — Corvus

That's a good thing to wonder about. I notice that for the second time you have referred to this instance as a pattern. That I do this with others' sayings. I did it with two things you said. I reassured you that my being critical of what you are doing here does not mean I think you can't write what you feel. Obviously, given your reaction it makes sense to specifically address your concern in your words. As far as the emotional volatility accusation you made It was not a saying, it was a judgment and not in the form of a saying. My aiming it back at you was to show how easy it is to claim that someone is being emotionally volatile. Rather than, for example, deal with some of the factual issues in that post. But, of course, you are free to ignore anything troublesome, just as you are free to not check to see if you misquoted Flannel Jesus. You're free to never show the logic book that showed your deductions were correct. You're free to claim you were always doing induction, despite the obvious deduction symbols you used. You're free to make up things about Flannel Jesus and me. You're free to do all sorts of things and I would defend your right to keep posting here, if the subject ever came up. If you want to move forward, well obviously you are free to move forward, whatever it says about your character.

I'll also move forward.

Please have a read on your own writing, and think. Where is philosophy? It is just criticisms based on your own subjective point of view and bias.

When it is a deadlock, one has to say "Hey let's move on", and that's what I have done, and you still keep accuse the position I took.

I don't need your nonsense and emotion filled writings. I have moved on long before you head butted into the thread with your nonsense. As I said, was just wondering what you were on about. Move on mate.