TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm only saying that in any given context, it would help to be clear which of those frameworks are intended. As far as I can tell, ordinarily Steelman...

SMOKE AND MIRRORS desmoked and demirrored There really isn't a puzzle. It has not been shown by McGee that modus ponens does not preserve strength for...

Exactly. I realized that this has an even simpler explanation.

Now I don't think ~R -> A is counterintuitive. Because it has probability of 65%

I was mistaken to couch it the way I did.

I deleted this post, because I realized the solution is even simpler: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/567916

This subject sounds interesting. First, though, it's important to be clear on the differences between (1) proof or demonstration or inference, (2) deb...

Just to say proactively: Some people claim that classifications must obey certain essentialities in order to be correct. For example (I'm not trying t...

Regarding saying that two sets have the same cardinality without saying what that cardinality it is: That's really good.

This is not circular: df: K is a cardinal <-> (K is an ordinal & Aj(j e K -> there is no bijection between j and K)) df: card(x) = the least ordinal j...

I'm looking at the notion of 'prior' syntactically (others may wish to discuss 'prior' in another sense, but then I'd like to know the definition of '...

I see your point. A logic form may not be comprehensive. A simple example: Let P = AxRx Let Q = Ra P therefore Q INVALID AxRx Ra VALID

Right, I understood that. I don't understand that. Right, ~1 > 2 is not entailed when there is not a premise 1 v 2. But the reason it is not entailed ...

I didn't get why you chose that clause in particular. I see now - it was just the nominated example. (Disclaimer yes, apology and placation no.)

Well, at least thank you for not saying 'thank you'.

I think McGhee begs the question when he asserts that Jack does not have good reason to believe (3). He does have good reason to believe it. But he al...

I think I might have a solution. The solution is that it is not puzzling, let alone paradoxical, to have good reason to believe a statement and also g...

Bad Eliza.

Now you seem more like an Eliza machine than anything.

Ridiculously coy and juvenile dishonesty.

That is itself a groundless claim about my mental states. And you skipped again that I did give specific grounds for claiming that her posts are stupi...

A splendid description of your postings here. And you're an abysmal interlocuter. No answers from you on a number of questions I've posed that are at ...

And as much as you talk about appreciating other people's points of view, wouldn't it occur to you that many thousands of intelligent mathematicians a...

Your level of thinking is not much better than someone who never heard of written language and said, "What good are these letter shapes? They don't ma...

I wasn't talking about formal logic; I was talking about informal logic. And formal logic doesn't preclude that we have whatever variety of formal sys...

df: K is a cardinal iff K is an ordinal and there is no ordinal j less than K such that there is a bijection between K and j. There is no mention of '...

It's a statement about the quality of the content of a certain piece of writing. Such a statement would not ordinarily be subjected to full standards ...

That's really good. It puts the puzzle in stark formal terms and takes out the background noise about the historical election facts. Thanks. I don't g...

You posted links to another poster on the Internet. I critiqued her posts and I said what I think of her postings overall, including that what she sai...

Where did I misunderstand you previously? "objective ontological infallible evidence" Only by the wildest stretch of a notion of what 'ontological' me...

Now please stop saying that I said the poster is stupid. And please do not further perpetuate the strawmen you've set up. And please stop making thing...

Please, commonplace discussion about whether certain people are stupid or not is not ontology.

QUOTE ME. Quote me where you think I claimed that one should not establish a new logic system. Hell, I encourage anyone who would do that. You are str...

No, I did not claim they are mixed up ideas. I asked a question sarcastically. And you just now skipped my remarks about that in the post: And even IF...

First, I didn't say anyone is stupid (other than Donald Trump in the previous post). Anyway, claiming that someone is stupid may not be just expressin...

I meant to include the word 'don't'. I meant to say that I don't think I said she is stupid. And that is correct. I did not say she is stupid. I said ...

I don't know what your point is there.

fishfry's posts in this thread about ordinals have been generous and instructive. His posts deserve not to mangled, misconstrued, or strawmaned. I do ...

I'll stand corrected, but I think I said she is stupid. I said that what she wrote it stupid. And I said she is an ignoramus and a nutjob* (also see h...

In another post, she writes: "Professor Paul Kreeft offers the following in his book "Socratic Logic", "I have never found anyone except a professiona...

What is your definition of 'the complete set of sufficient and necessary propositions'?

Venn diagrams are profoundly useful. But they are limited. There are logical arguments they don't test. Maybe there's a theorem somewhere that says ex...

What definitions would you add? What sufficient and necessary condition?

It has nothing to do with domains or definitions. The problem stems from the fact that the argument posted is invalid, as has been explained. The argu...

She wrote about the Hodges book: "Here's what he does explain: (1) Logical arguments begin from true premises. (2) Logical arguments begin from premis...

I didn't say she said logic is stupid. I said that what she said about logic is stupid. SHE claims those are important points. Her remarks reveal that...

It is literally true that I did not say anyone denied it. And I haven't said that I blame you if you think I meant to imply that you denied it. And I ...

It is not picky for me to say that you start your post with exaggeration: (1) There is a vast amount of what you write that I don't respond to, let al...

I didn't say that anyone denied it. I said it shouldn't be denied. And if that was not clear, I followed up in reply to say I did not intend to imply ...

Throughout the thread, it seems to me that regularly take technical and heuristic disagreements, corrections, and even mere technical qualifications a...