No, it isn't. Truth tables are easy enough to learn, and easy to do, if you don't have too many variables.
(p=>q)=>(~p=>~q) is false when p is false and q is true. — tim wood
For example, consider the bi-conditional proposition: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet." — AmadeusD
"The bi-conditional statement "if it is raining, then the ground is wet" is true because it goes both ways. — AmadeusD
Via three AI models: — AmadeusD
In deductive syllogism it is fallacy — Corvus
Well spotted Tim. — Corvus
. Therefore, denying one (saying it's false) does indeed allow us to conclude that the other is also false, which is a valid form of reasoning in this specific context. — Pierre-Normand
This is clearly wrong. I'll leave it there. — AmadeusD
denying one component does logically allow us to conclude the denial of the other — Pierre-Normand
Therefore, denying one (saying it's false) does indeed allow us to conclude that the other is also false, which is a valid form of reasoning in this specific context. — Pierre-Normand
denying one component does not automatically lead to the denial of the other component. This is because the truth values of P and Q are independent of each other in a biconditional statement, and denying one does not necessarily mean the denial of the other. — AmadeusD
"This statement is logically incorrect because when one component of a biconditional statement is denied, it does not necessarily allow us to conclude the denial of the other component. In a biconditional statement "P if and only if Q" (P ↔ Q), denying one component does not automatically lead to the denial of the other component. This is because the truth values of P and Q are independent of each other in a biconditional statement, and denying one does not necessarily mean the denial of the other. So, it is not valid to conclude the denial of one component based on the denial of the other in a biconditional statement."
It is not entailed that hte denial of one requires the denial of hte other. I should have been clearer in my objection. It was clearly inadequate. — AmadeusD
It is not entailed that hte denial of one requires the denial of hte other. I should have been clearer in my objection. It was clearly inadequate. — AmadeusD
Who is the author of the long paragraph between quotes that you posted above — Pierre-Normand
So, my objection isn't to the logic, it seems. It's to the application. The logic clearly fails in many cases. — AmadeusD
The only one I've been able to stand behind is that bi-conditional logic isn't relevant to real life, in most cases. — AmadeusD
doesn't adequately capture the form of the argument that someone made in this particular case. — Pierre-Normand
You are saying that "the lawn is wet if and only if it rained" is a false biconditional statement. — Pierre-Normand
They are obviously, patently, inadequate. They neither capture the nuance of reality, or justify their relation. It is a nonsense. — AmadeusD
They did not commit a logical fallacy like affirming the antecedent of a conditional premise. — Pierre-Normand
Is that a fallacy? — flannel jesus
So you were incorrect about that when you said that?
And then earlier in this thread you agreed with the following: — flannel jesus
But since now you're saying it's a Fallacy, then the above quote that you agreed with can't be true. — flannel jesus
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.