A nice little argument worth thinking about. The following is a valid inference.
(p → q) & (r → s), therefore (p → s) v (r → q)
But given this we can easily show that at least some cases of English indicative conditionals do not fit this scheme. Since they would if they were material conditionals, they are not material conditionals. Here's an example, taken from Graham Priest, who takes it from W. S. Cooper:
If John is in Paris he is in France & if John is in London he is in England.
From this we obviously cannot conclude
If John is in Paris he is in England or if John is in London he is France.
Another one. This is valid:
~(p → q), therefore p
But this is not:
It is not the case that if there is a good God the prayers of evil people will be answered. Therefore there is a good God.
Because, of course, it does not follow that there is a good God merely from the assumption that "if there is a good God the prayers of evil people will be answered" is false.
No comments:
Post a Comment
No anonymity (but consistent pseudonyms allowed). Abusive comments, especially directed toward other commenters, will be deleted; abusive commenters will be hunted down and shot. By posting a comment you agree to these terms and conditions.
Please understand that this weblog runs on a third-party comment system, not on Blogger's comment system. If you have come by way of a mobile device and can see this message, you may have landed on the Blogger comment page; your comments will only be shown on this page and not on the page most people will see, and it is much more likely that your comment will be missed (although I do occasionally check to make sure that no comments are being overlooked).