From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 20 06:19:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 20 Feb 2002 14:19:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 74517 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 14:19:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2002 14:19:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 14:19:09 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.a3.23f65c55 (25715) for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:19:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:19:05 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a3.23f65c55.29a50a59_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_a3.23f65c55.29a50a59_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/2002 4:45:15 AM Central Standard Time, cherlin@pacbell.net writes: > Yes, a false statement implies anything, but no conclusion can be > drawn from that fact about the implicand. That is the meaning of > "does not follow". Formally, the argument can be stated as > > Hypotheses: > A implies B > Not A > Conclusion: > B > > I repeat my claim: This is precisely a non sequitur. The hypotheses > are irrelevant to the conclusion. > Well, the argument you give is a non-sequitur, a variant on denial of the antecedent to be exact. But it is not the argument given, which was (in the present terms) A therefore B. That A is false was supplied by someone else. The effect of that claim is the claim that the argument gives no reason to accept B, even if it did in fact follow from A. The hypothesis of the original is not irrelevant to the conclusion, nor indeed are the hypotheses of this version, though in this case they are inadequate. --part1_a3.23f65c55.29a50a59_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/2002 4:45:15 AM Central Standard Time, cherlin@pacbell.net writes:


Yes, a false statement implies anything, but no conclusion can be
drawn from that fact about the implicand. That is the meaning of
"does not follow". Formally, the argument can be stated as

Hypotheses:
A implies B
Not A
Conclusion:
B

I repeat my claim: This is precisely a non sequitur. The hypotheses
are irrelevant to the conclusion.


Well, the argument you give is a non-sequitur, a variant on denial of the antecedent to be exact.  But it is not the argument given, which was (in the present terms) A therefore B.  That A is false was supplied by someone else. The effect of that claim is the claim that the argument gives no reason to accept B, even if it did in fact follow from A.  The hypothesis of the original is not irrelevant to the conclusion, nor indeed are the hypotheses of this version, though in this case they are inadequate. --part1_a3.23f65c55.29a50a59_boundary--