n classical logic, A -> B being true always means ~B -> ~A is also true.
They have the same truth tables as each other. — flannel jesus
Sure, if the truth table says so, then it must be it — Corvus
(A implies B) is true, but (~B implies ~A) — flannel jesus
There is no hard coded laws here. — Corvus
I would like to have a discussion with Corvus about if the logic used here is actually logical, or if it is perhaps fallacious — flannel jesus
For example, consider the bi-conditional proposition: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet." — AmadeusD
Yes, or in other words: denying the “antecedent” of a biconditional is not a fallacy. Yet denying the antecedent of a conditional is a well-known fallacy. — Leontiskos
So do you think any time you have (a implies b) , it's always true that (not a implies not b) — flannel jesus
Yes, it is correct. — Corvus
For example, consider the bi-conditional proposition: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet." Denying the antecedent would result in saying "It is not raining, therefore the ground is not wet." However, the ground could still be wet for reasons other than rain, such as someone watering their lawn or a sprinkler system being turned on.
Therefore, denying the antecedent of a bi-conditional proposition does not provide valid grounds for concluding that the consequent is also false, making it logically unsound." — AmadeusD
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.