[Wittrs] Stuart Admits to Fallacious Reasoning

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:45:07 -0400

SWM wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>what does 'implies' mean today? are you saying that Searle's position
>>presumes Cartesian dualism; or, are you saying that Cartesian dualism
>>follows (can be deduced) from Searle's position?

>I have used the term "presumes" numerous times by now so why do you
>even think you have to ask? A presumption is also an implication if we
>reverse the line of reasoning. That is, if a conclusion DEPENDS on a
>presumption, then, if the conclusion is true, it follows that the
>presumption is.

well, Stuart, what you have here is a very concise formula for
perpetrating the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

if a conclusion, Q, depends on a presumption, P, then you have a
conditional statement: P -> Q [P implies or entails Q]. if you find that
the conclusion is true, you may assert Q. if you say that it follows
that P is true you have the argument:

P -> Q
(therefore) P

that is precisely what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is.

did you even read the page to which I referred you a few days ago,



Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: