|
|
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."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
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 |
|
|
| |
