Subject: Re: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:19:05 EST

In a message dated 2/20/2002 4:45:15 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] 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.