flannel jesus

If you really believe that all p implies q statements are inherently invalid, because to you p implies q is not a tautology, then you're absolutely in...

That's not what invalid means. Invalid doesn't just mean "there's some way to make this premise false" Validity is a property of a whole argument, not...

you're not using the word "valid" correctly in that post. p implies q is a premise. It's not valid or invalid on its own, it's a premise. You can disa...

Despite appearances, I don't think Beverley and corvus reasoning is remotely similar to each other. For one thing, Beverley rejects denying the Antece...

really interesting

oddly, though, the result only holds for people who are born blind, and not who go blind as adolescents or adults.

I guess results matter to me. If you have all sorts of abstract reasons why purely voluntary education is "good", but we have all these tangible reaso...

I would fear that completely voluntary education would have a lot of negative consequences. A lot of people in environments with gangs would drop out ...

So imagine tomorrow you are given the reins to education. You're not allowed to abolish government, or make any changes to any governmental system wha...

One would think! Unless the parents were secret CIA operatives trying to hide the existence of the last remaining challenge to the power of the KGB in...

I missed this the first time around. I apologize. I applaud you for reading the material on symbolic logic, even though you were unfamiliar with it, a...

I accept that you don't agree with cogito. I'm not trying to convince you of cogito. You have expressed agreement with corvus reasoning - there are ma...

You've explained what Beverley thinks about it?

So it sounds like you're still not agreeing with what he just said, which is He's confirming it again - that denying the Antecedent is a part of his t...

This might be a completely wacky idea, but--- In the realm of the multiverse, simpler universes appear more commonly than more complex universes. This...

He based his logic on the premise that you can jump from "p implies q" to "not p implies not q" in general. You can see him present the argument here....

no. You cannot jump from 'I think therefore I am' to 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist'. In general, you cannot jump from "p implies q" to "no...

"I exist" is an inference. "I must exist in order to think" might be an intuition, I'm not sure. I'm asking you what you think because I think you mig...

Would you please just honestly tell me, do you personally disagree with (a) your own existence, and/or (b) the idea that you wouldn't be able to think...

Or if you talk to some meditators, you've gone exactly where you should have. Though I'd agree with you, that's probably too far (except for a select ...

I think that would be a safe bet. Of course, the person bad at reasoning could only agree that that's a safe bet if one of the things he's bad at does...

For one to think, one must exist. I think. Therefore, I exist. The conclusion here of course isn't "Flannel Jesus exists", the "I" is a variable for t...

Which part of the reasoning process do you personally think is 'just an intuition'?

Of course.

Fascinating, this is the first I've heard of this test. Thanks for the link.

In my conversation with Corvus, he himself has already agreed with the necessary intuition to agree with the Cogito - he has agreed that existence is ...

This thought occurred to me too, but with the following hesitancy: if this person knows he's bad at discovering truths and reasoning, how confident ca...

Yes, situations that give you real feedback that you have indeed made a mistake are amazing opportunities for learning. Unfortunately, it seems that i...

To be honest, I've actually been thinking about this for at least months. Questioning myself has always been important to me - I would want to know if...

Some of us desire to not be so beholden to such limitations. Everyone is biased, yes, but I think it's pretty likely that, on average, people who TRY ...

That's sort of why I'm talking about systematic disagreements, rather than just raw disagreements. Like, if you believe in God, and maybe 80% of philo...

Someone bad at reasoning may see another person disagreeing with them, saying "this argument is poorly formed / fallacious", and decide that that pers...

Yes, this seems like an intuitive avenue to a discovery of one's own erroneous reasoning facilities to me as well, BUT it relies on one necessary prem...

I suppose it's kind of recursive, this problem - if one of the benefits of being able to reason well, and use logic, is to find out what you're wrong ...

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. True patience would actually involve *considering what the people you're talking to say*. You haven't begun t...

All of what he's been saying? Including his reasons for disagreeing with the cogito? His central argument in this thread has been, if "I think therefo...

Even if it did, he's already agreed with it prior in the thread. He agreed that someone has to exist in order to think. He just doesn't understand how...

This is the second time you've made it out like it's about other people - it's about yourself, not others. It's "I think therefore I am", not "he thin...

Interesting. He has told me that I'm incapable of understanding basic logic because I don't think (p implies q) implies (not p implies not q). I of co...

if we're loose about what we mean by "certain" and don't mean "exactly 100% certain" then totally. But if certain means perfectly 100% certain, no roo...

Here's what the real modus ponens looks like in the checker https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((p~5q)~1p)~5q That's affirming the Antecedent, which is how mo...

If you want to use the logic checker correctly, here's how you do it. First I will demonstrate a valid argument, Modus Tollens https://www.umsu.de/tre...

You have chickened out of every disagreement once it's starts looking like you might be wrong. Be brave. Look at the possibility that you might be wro...

Almost none of what you said is pertinent to any conversations being had here. Not the "I think therefore I am" conversation. Not the "is denying the ...

if that were true, then this: (p?q) ? (¬p?q) is valid. Shows that "Not P then Q" is validly drawn from P ?Q. I'm using the same reasoning as you. The ...

so are you agreeing that "(p?q)?(¬p?¬q) is valid according to this logic checker" doesn't prove anything? If not, what do you think it proves? What do...

You haven't quite grokked what the logic checker is actually doing. Guess what else the logic checker says is valid: (p?q) ? (¬p?q) is valid. Also (p?...

Do you agree with him for the same reasons he thinks? He thinks that if someone accepts "I think therefore I am", they must also accept "I don't think...

I don't really know what you mean by this. Something? There must be something?

How can you be 100% certain of your place of birth? You can't imagine any circumstance where that's a lie? You probably don't remember it yourself. Yo...