[lit-ideas] Re: falsifiability falsified?
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:48:48 -0800
Walter mysteriously wrote
given (i[f] p then q) and not-q, it follows that not-q.
Maybe in some possible world it does but not in this one. It does seem
clear however that 'not-q' entails 'not-q,' one of the more notable
advances in logic since Chrysippus.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
