Corvus

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 t...

It looks determined after the event, but before the event I was able to decide to want and choose what I wanted. Or sometimes I don't want something, ...

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 subj...

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

That is definitely an inductive statement. It is never deductive statement for sure. The statement came from your experience and observations in the p...

Sure, it just shows your whole mental operations and judgements are based on your volatile emotions and wild imaginations rather than facts and reason...

I have tried with the different methods for logical analysis, which didn't suit the cogito for a logical analysis due to the fact it being a psycholog...

It is a psychological statement. It is not deduction or induction. I have said that many times, but obviously you missed it.

For example, if your partner (husband or wife) cheated you, then would you say that he / she cheated because he / she was born, and had DNA for cheati...

That is still to be discussed and concluded. I am not sure 100% that is inductive or deductive statement. To me it is not a statement. It is grammatic...

I chose DEDUCE to mean, that we have no empirical element of observation in the statement. It was used in loose sense at the time. But here we are int...

Analytic statement means that the statement itself already has its meaning, or the premises already contains the meaning of the conclusion. Inductive ...

I am not sure on your answers. Where is analytic part in the statements? See? We don't even agree on the statements were deductive or inductive, and w...

Here is a question for you. Is "I think therefore I am" a deductive or inductive statement? How about "If it rains, the ground will be wet." ????

I understand deduce as logical thinking from A priori or analytic concepts. Induction means that you come to logical conclusion via external empirical...

It must be still winter chill season in England.

I didn't make fallacious comment. Please note this point. The internet says "It is fallacious to deny antecedent." But it is only fallacious in deduct...

No probs mate. Jgill said he is not believing with this discussions keep going on here, so there must be folks thinking that we are having stupid conv...

If you achieved what you planed to achieve, whatever it might be, I am fine with that. There is nothing wrong for someone to be wrong. People keep lea...

P->Q and Not Q -> Not P TF values is exactly the same in the truth table in one of my Logic book here. If P -> Q is false then Not Q -> Not P is false...

I can say anything I feel correct. Whether you agree to it or not, that doesn't make anything different. After all the whole of you point seems to be ...

I seems to be the case your whole point was not trying to find and learn something in logic, but trying to assert my one post was wrong. Is it that me...

A good video for the thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQc-_nQAupw

Well spotted Tim. I am a bit too lazy to be staring at Truth tables, and was too busy at the time, and was guessing. It depends on the TF values of p ...

Should we not trace the most immediate causes for our actions? If we go too far back for accounting the causes, then we might have to go back to the b...

Was just trying to be a help for the request from FJ for clarification.

The post seem to be in an obvious case of internet info. snack gone down into wrong pipe. In deductive syllogism it is fallacy, but in inductive case,...

Yeah I am busy and in the middle of doing other stuff, and will have a look at it when I am free.

That's from the truth table.

Of course there are general rules for truth table and syntax rules, but for proof process, you must reason yourself for brining in the relevant infere...

Even if it says True, when you compared with the real events, if they are false, then it is false. Also the premise is false.

There is no hard coded laws here. It depends on your inference and the case, and also checking with the real events in the world. The rules only says ...

If the truth table says so, yes. But compared with the reality event, it could be denied, in which case, the premise would be denied too. Proof proces...

Sure, if the truth table says so, then it must be it. But in the empirical cases, you can also compare the TF values with the reality events, in which...

If it rains, then ground is wet. The ground is not wet, so it doesn't rain. This is the case of contraposition isn't it? It looks like it is sometimes...

Could it not be your judgement which takes place always after your decisions on the choices? You are thinking them all as hard determinism, because yo...

That sounds like Buddhism. Could it be right? Which sphere in the Tree of Life depicts morality?

The argument was meant to prove R -> W, not (R or H) -> W. If you wanted to prove (R or H) -> W, then yes of course, the premise should have begun wit...

That would depend on the case under the proof. I will get back on that later. cheers.

Yes, it is correct. You don't need to always bring in Not A -> Not B for your inference. It is totally under your discretion of your inference for the...

Every case in the truth value can be applied for your inference. If it helps to contrapositive for your argument, and it matches the reality event, th...

In the case of If it rains the the ground will be wet. You think and infer, which will be most relevant and good to test, if it is true? Ah... how abo...

It is not "lead to". It is an assumption, which you bring into the argument that you think most relevant and reasonable for the premise that you want ...

If not sure, make up an extended truth table for all the possible scenarios, and see all the cases for the TF values. It gets apparent.

I will get back on that, as I must go out now. cheers.

It would also depend on the case by case.

I think you are correct. But you don't have to always apply the contradiction. It depends on the case, and your inference.

The truth table value is from the rule. But you also check with the reality observations here too, because it is an empirical argument, not analytic.

Logic is a science of inference. That is one of my old logic book says. To prove a statement for true or false, you must start with a premise to prove...

:worry: :fear: No need for apology my friend. There seem to be definitely element of determinism in life. In fact every events in the past are under t...