Stipulation: All Hs prefer P or ~P [Hs prefer P or ~P but not both]N.B. In the above argument the symbol "~" means "not" or "negation."
Premise 1: if H prefers P --> H prefers L
Premise 2: if H prefers ~P --> H prefers ~L
Premise 3: (H prefers L) is True
[Therefore]: The inference, or conclusion, [(H prefers P) is True] is valid
That's a fair question. So I'll answer it.
Answer: The above argument may become part of a broader argument; it may become embedded in a broader argument.
I may post the broader argument later. Or maybe I won't. (Now there's deductive logic for you!)
If I do post the broader argument, I won't hold you responsible for the broader argument. And you won't in fact be responsible for it -- and that's a fact.
So, someone in the silent majority, you help out. If you do, your reward will be the knowledge that you have contributed to knowledge -- and to the assessment of you-are-for-us-or-against-us reasoning.
coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law
2 comments:
(Delurking after a year or two as a faithful reader)
That argument looks like an example of affirming the consequent, which is almost always classified as a type of fallacy...
Do you think the amendment suggested by my colleague (see my next post) avoids the fallacy? My sense is that the answer is "yes." Do you agree?
Post a Comment