On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:14:45 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:25:46 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >No. P may be false and validly imply true q. >> >> >> >> I don't follow this. If P is false then any Q demonstrated of P is >> >> false too. >> > >> >Let P = Margaret Thatcher is a man, and all men are politicians. >> >Let Q = Margaret Thatcher is a politician. >> > >> >P is false, and validly implies Q, which is true. >> >> Well sure but you're using compound predicates which are false to >> begin with and don't really imply Q except to the extent they're >> false.If I were simply to say "Margaret Thatcher is a male politician" >> the effect would be exactly the same. > > Not to anyone who knows anything about logic.
But apparently to anyone who knows nothing about truth.
>> The proposition is just false. Q >> may or may not be true but not because P is false. > >It is the compound proposition "If P then Q" whose truth is under >consideration, and for the P and Q given, "If P then Q" is true. > >Zick always misrepresents things when they show him wrong. This >particular form of fallacious argument is more formally called the >fallacy of the straw man. Zick pretends that what shows him wrong says >something other that what it actually says. > >Watch him do it again.
>> > In the >> >case of mathematical axioms, it could be argued that the axioms >> >are stipulative, >> >> Of course they're stipulative. The difficulty is that they're assumed >> true. > >Not by mathematicians. Only by klutzes such as Zick.