|
|
Denying the Antecedent vs Improper TranspositionAffirming the Consequent and Commutation of Conditionals are logically similar, as they have the same form (affirming the consequent Q and therefore affirming P), but the latter phrase applies to conditional statements. Thus, while both being examples of fallacious modus ponens, at least I can tell when to use each. This is not the case for Denying the Antecedent and Improper Transposition, though. They appear too similar for me to distinguish between them. Denying the Antecedent presents like this: P implies Q. Not-P, therefore, not-Q. Invalid because P is not a necessary condition for Q. Got it. Improper Transposition presents like this: If P, then Q. If not-P, then not-Q. Nowhere in the page description is it stated whether this applies to conditionals only or not (which helped me with the first two fallacies I mention). So are the two effectively the same and just context-dependent? Or is there another difference I've missed? |
| asked on Sunday, May 10, 2020 09:40:01 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
The only examples I found on this (outside of my own site) used conditionals. If by "context dependent" you mean that conditionals are required, I would say "probably" with the disclaimer that this is because I have simply not seen it any other way. Perhaps someone who specializes in formal logic can chime in. |
| answered on Monday, May 11, 2020 06:27:39 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
