frank

Oh no. I'm deeply wounded now. :groan:

It's like the Fool. Ambiguous and possibly holy.

Is that bad or good?

It's like beer, it's good and it's good for you.

If Donald Trump is a metaphor for something, what is that something? I mean to you, not Americans.

I agree. And being convinced that it can't happen to us is a recipe for blindness in case it does start happening. Humility protects.

It's just that Latino women didn't switch from Biden to Trump, but a significant number of Latino men did, so people figure it was sexism, I guess bec...

Think of different societies as being like plants. Some are corn plants, some are palms, and some are cacti. Each evolved to survive its own set of ch...

I don't think there was any temperature. Male Latinos didn't back Harris the way they had Biden. One swing state elected a Democratic Jew for governor...

Yes. There was a trade war right before the Great Depression.

Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing? The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a...

The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because every...

me too. :heart:

https://youtu.be/PaWQOUGjXXc?si=B9ifheOfsr3URFqW

Trump's vice president leans toward project 2025, which is about removing opposition to Trump from the federal government. Plus he favors dictatorship...

I'm so envious! I listen to Max Richter at least once a week. Also Nils Frahm.

Dude took all the swing states. Wtf?

I like this one: https://i.imgur.com/rytb3bs.jpeg

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit...

Ok. Thank you!

I guess you mean there are interpretations where the sentences are uttered in a context where they could be true. Thanks for your help. I don't think ...

Why is it wrong? There is no interpretation where both premises are true.

I see what you're saying. The climatologist I've studied the most said that this century will see more storms and more intense storms. That's a statem...

@"TonesInDeepFreeze" is this true? Couldn't it be: 1. The present King of France is bald. 2. The present King of France is wise. Therefore: Cows bark....

You may be right. Nevertheless, what Tones is pointing out is that anytime there are no cases where both premises are true, the argument will be valid...

If you have an argument in which there is an interpretation where both premises are false, but there are no cases where both premises are true, then t...

Explosion is that any proposition can be proven from a contradiction. What Tones is explaining is that if you have an argument in which there is never...

Ok. What I was trying clarify is that he's not talking about explosion. It's simply that if there is no interpretation in which all the premises are t...

This is a case where blaming climate change exclusively is a problem. People need to recognize that the soil can be rehabilitated. Regulations need to...

We have a federal department of agriculture, and it has some authority, but it couldn't stop people from changing their practices. By the way, the US ...

I didn't say "if and only if." I just said that since there are no cases where both premises are true, the argument is valid.

It's both. If you look at the website I cited, it mentions that there are ways to rehabilitate the soil. Desertification is a sign that it's time to g...

I'm sure you're aware that part of Spain's problem is poor agricultural practices. Something similar happened in the USA during the 1930s. What happen...

You may be right. Let's double check with him. @"TonesInDeepFreeze"

Notice that 1 and 2 are saying the same thing: The argument is valid if there is no interpretation in which All the premises are true AND the conclusi...

It hinges on the definition of validity. It's weird, but according to Tones, that's how it works.

You are. He's just using the definition of validity: There is no interpretation in which all the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is valid.

You're giving a different reason for why it's valid versus Tones.

I see. I don't think that's what Tones was saying though. He was saying that since there are no cases where both premises are true, the argument is va...

It's not obvious to climatologists. They use climate modeling to determine that anthropogenic global warming is happening. They don't just say, "Oh, i...

Ok. I see. But then, what about the second premise? If A is false, wouldn't the second premise actually be not-A?

But in this case, they're the same variable. They're both A.

I read it, thanks. It just looks like that if the A in the antecedent is false, the A in the consequent should be false too. I think you were only mak...

That's cool. But if the antecedent is negated, why wouldn't it be: ¬A ? ¬(¬A) In other words, why wouldn't you negate both A's?

How do you figure that?

Inconsistent? If you look at the argument in the OP, there can never be a case where both premises are true. According to the definition of validity i...

Yes, I understand.

Just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.

We just went through an El Nino phase. Don't conclude climate change just because you can't think of anything else. Scientists use super computers to ...