Interesting. Can we substitute salva veritate into an ironic statement? Seems to work. If George is George Atkins then "George is going to open the st...
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I had taken "it" and "the inference" to be the argument in the OP. Hence it appeared you were saying the argument in the ...
Good to see that the number of folk who think that argument in the OP valid has dropped from a third to a quarter. Still sad that it remains that high...
Folk who understand that the argument is valid yet not sound will make no such conclusion. The argument presented in the OP is valid, and has the form...
Exactly that. If you modify the substitution rule to remove substitution of the same variable on both sides of a function, can you demonstrate that th...
Yep. Well for a start you would no longer be dealing with a complete version of propositional calculus... Too often this is an excuse for poor logic. ...
The OP is a factual question, not an issues of opinion. The one-third of folk who think that the argument is invalid are wrong. As wrong as if they ha...
It seems folk think A ? ~A is a contradiction. It isn't. Here is the truth table for the contradiction A and not-A: https://i.ibb.co/w0rJkcz/image.png...
Allowing substitution of any well-formed formula is not a personal foible. It is how propositional logic works. (?, ? ?? ? ? ) for any well-formed for...
Not the sort of thing I had in mind. Nor, frankly, am I inclined to go into details here, where simple substitution is apparently contentious. More ag...
A thread of mine attempted amongst other things to discuss plausible cases in which modus ponens might not apply. It was lost in misunderstanding, whi...
As Tones explained, it's not MP you have misunderstood, but substitution. MP is a rule of inference, saying that if you have ? and ? ??, then you also...
No, but it might make for shorter threads. As it stands the acrimony will only build. Good for thread length, of course. Hanover has not understood su...
We haven't left @"Hanover" any space to back down without loosing face. Bit of a shame. It is astonishing that a third of those who could be bothered ...
They don't say otherwise. But they do not specifically rule out any substitution, including ~A for B. Find one that does so, and you will have support...
Reference? Yes, I'd enjoy being able to interrogate the data, although the sample size is a bit small. A similar survey could be done here using Surve...
Good question. I don't see a question in the survey that addressed this. After a bit more searching, there was also this: https://i.ibb.co/Yd0CMGH/ima...
Not at all. Despite being accused of engaging in a "polemic" by , I continue to think the issue both interesting and open: Do you think that the discu...
A curiosity I came across in the Philpapers survey. The analysis examines correlations with other questions, most of which are to do with anti-realism...
What should stand out in this discussion is that if there is one true logic, one true consequence relation. or definition of "correct logic", or a log...
@"Count Timothy von Icarus" Providing links or references to sources and quotes, and linking mentions, are basic courtesies. https://www.reddit.com/r/...
Just to be clear, for other folk, Tim's question is loaded precisely becasue the notion that there is a "correct logic" for which a definition might b...
As things stand, I doubt you have the capacity to tell who has a " basic understanding of the topic". You are trying to play "gotcha", but you've fumb...
:lol: A rough outline of a direction in which a discussion will go does not amount to a definition. In summary, in a discussion of logic, you are dema...
"Correct logic" is not a term defined in formal logic. That's rather the point here. You will not, for example, find a definition of "Correct Logic" i...
She uses "correct logic" a couple of times on the first page of Logical Nihilism and not at all in "One True Logic?". It's hardly central. If you want...
Comments