"We-Have-To-Do-Something fallacy." One of my favorites. No, we don't. First off there is no we, second no you don't. You are trying to co-opt permission to do your will. Mostly that attitude fulfills the form of caring but almost never the deed of caring.
HAHAHA. If not-WOKE then still stupid! Leftists. And there it is...there's exists an endless supply of examples among leftists and their tortured thinking.
"If we beat him, then the baby cries" makes more sense to me. And, "if the baby doesn't cry, then we didn't beat him" would remain sensible. I have trouble accepting as true the original "if the baby cries, then we beat him" because so many other things make babies cry. Perhaps another example would be helpful.
The example of cancer is very contentious because cancer in itself is an ambiguous word that is meaningless outside of some particular context. It is a fuzzy concept. Cancer is a philosophy of its own.
We use words not for the meaning but towards a particular purpose. This is the reason why AI algorithms will fail or close into the world of unreality, which they already do. They are powered by the Trojan horse language of particular, increasingly unwise, machine-like, flesh-less people, who are a destructive aberration.
An example of Ivan Illich is a good case for such a demonstration. When it comes to the ambiguity between how this particular man walks the road of life (what is his way of walking aka how he acts in the flesh in the world around him according to what he worships not what he is aka identity; how vs what), biology (a recent invention), and medicine (a swamp of philosophy of its own, depending upon who is philosophizing, see “the way man walks the road of life, common sense life, not a biological life of a zygote)… “Having” “cancer” becomes a set of two fuzzy values.
There are people who claim that Ivan Illich “had cancer” and died “of cancer”. Ivan Illich did not “have cancer” and did not die “of cancer” according to him and those who were close to him. This discrepancy is apocalyptic is a revelatory way. Prophetic.
Why is it prophetic? It is prophetic because Ivan Illich revealed, by the way he walked under the nose of God, fearful that he may miss the Lord passing by, that what (what is a key word here as opposed to whom) each iteration of modern medicine attempts to heal is a mirage.
Given: There are two envelopes, each containing money, with one envelope containing twice as much as the other. I have just drawn one envelope and found that it contains $8.
P: I drew the one with the lesser amount.
Q: The other envelope contains $16.
If I drew the one with the lesser amount, then the other envelope contains $16.
If the other envelope does not contain $16, then I didn't draw the one with the lesser amount.
The above should always work.
"If I buy a ticket, then I will win the lottery."
"I didn't win the lottery; therefore, I did not buy a ticket."
The above works if and only if the first statement is rigorously true. We recognize it as casual, hopeful remark that is not really dependable. Therefore, the second statement does not follow.
I think this argument could be made with any of them, and that "works vs. does not work" is a distinction that does not really "work" here.
"If Baby cries, then we beat him." Assuming it follows, as daylight upon sunrise, that whenever Baby cries for whatever reason we commence beating him, then if we are not beating him, he must not be crying. This one can also "work."
"If there is food, then I will eat." "Here is a tin can of food. Sorry you don't have a can-opener." This one can also "not work."
I think the problem boils down to the inaccuracy of street speech, or as you say, to the unboundedness of casual propositions. In casual speech, a lot of context is assumed.
That book "Anything Goes" looked really interesting, but unfortunately it has been out of print for a long time, and prices for even used copies seem to be in the stratosphere.
"We-Have-To-Do-Something fallacy." One of my favorites. No, we don't. First off there is no we, second no you don't. You are trying to co-opt permission to do your will. Mostly that attitude fulfills the form of caring but almost never the deed of caring.
If ALIVE then BREATHING
If not-ALIVE then not-BREATHING
Works (assuming you are not on a lung machine and actually brain dead)
If WOKE then STUPID
If not-WOKE then not-STUPID
Fails (alas)
What you need to find in the not-q then not-p is a q that can only be found in p.
Specify your restrictions for the first one. Fish are alive but don't breathe.
https://www.sciencefacts.net/how-do-fish-breathe.html
Point well taken there are (probably) other living things that do not breathe. The assumption was humans, should have been explicit.
HAHAHA. If not-WOKE then still stupid! Leftists. And there it is...there's exists an endless supply of examples among leftists and their tortured thinking.
On P and Q.
Works:
P: I debate
Q: I lose friends
If I debate, then I lose friends.
If I am not losing friends, then I am not debating.
Does not work:
P: I'm hungry
Q: I eat
If I'm hungry, then I eat.
If I don't eat, then I'm not hungry.
(note: this fails unless one has mastered the art of self-deception.)
The second one is perfect. I'll likely steal this example.
The first one might fail: you could still lose friends without debating. Hence the need for some "bounding" on the propositions.
If I'm hungry and there is food, then I eat.
If I don't eat, then I'm not hungry or there is no food.
The existence of food was implied...
Works:
IF wealthy, THEN can buy food
IF cannot buy food THEN not wealthy
Does not work:
IF I am tired THEN I rest
IF I am not resting THEN I am not tired
"If we beat him, then the baby cries" makes more sense to me. And, "if the baby doesn't cry, then we didn't beat him" would remain sensible. I have trouble accepting as true the original "if the baby cries, then we beat him" because so many other things make babies cry. Perhaps another example would be helpful.
I took that as meaning that we beat the baby for crying. Then, any time the baby cries for whatever reason, it follows that we beat him.
Taken that way, it should work. We are not beating the baby; we would be beating him if he were crying; therefore, the baby is not crying.
The example of cancer is very contentious because cancer in itself is an ambiguous word that is meaningless outside of some particular context. It is a fuzzy concept. Cancer is a philosophy of its own.
We use words not for the meaning but towards a particular purpose. This is the reason why AI algorithms will fail or close into the world of unreality, which they already do. They are powered by the Trojan horse language of particular, increasingly unwise, machine-like, flesh-less people, who are a destructive aberration.
An example of Ivan Illich is a good case for such a demonstration. When it comes to the ambiguity between how this particular man walks the road of life (what is his way of walking aka how he acts in the flesh in the world around him according to what he worships not what he is aka identity; how vs what), biology (a recent invention), and medicine (a swamp of philosophy of its own, depending upon who is philosophizing, see “the way man walks the road of life, common sense life, not a biological life of a zygote)… “Having” “cancer” becomes a set of two fuzzy values.
There are people who claim that Ivan Illich “had cancer” and died “of cancer”. Ivan Illich did not “have cancer” and did not die “of cancer” according to him and those who were close to him. This discrepancy is apocalyptic is a revelatory way. Prophetic.
Why is it prophetic? It is prophetic because Ivan Illich revealed, by the way he walked under the nose of God, fearful that he may miss the Lord passing by, that what (what is a key word here as opposed to whom) each iteration of modern medicine attempts to heal is a mirage.
https://open.substack.com/pub/medicalnemesis/p/jaws
Given: There are two envelopes, each containing money, with one envelope containing twice as much as the other. I have just drawn one envelope and found that it contains $8.
P: I drew the one with the lesser amount.
Q: The other envelope contains $16.
If I drew the one with the lesser amount, then the other envelope contains $16.
If the other envelope does not contain $16, then I didn't draw the one with the lesser amount.
The above should always work.
"If I buy a ticket, then I will win the lottery."
"I didn't win the lottery; therefore, I did not buy a ticket."
The above works if and only if the first statement is rigorously true. We recognize it as casual, hopeful remark that is not really dependable. Therefore, the second statement does not follow.
I think this argument could be made with any of them, and that "works vs. does not work" is a distinction that does not really "work" here.
"If Baby cries, then we beat him." Assuming it follows, as daylight upon sunrise, that whenever Baby cries for whatever reason we commence beating him, then if we are not beating him, he must not be crying. This one can also "work."
"If there is food, then I will eat." "Here is a tin can of food. Sorry you don't have a can-opener." This one can also "not work."
I think the problem boils down to the inaccuracy of street speech, or as you say, to the unboundedness of casual propositions. In casual speech, a lot of context is assumed.
That book "Anything Goes" looked really interesting, but unfortunately it has been out of print for a long time, and prices for even used copies seem to be in the stratosphere.