= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
andrewc comments on Guilt by Association - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (38)
I'm not sure I'd grant that. The second can be sneaky, in that you can encounter countless arguments of that form with true premises and a true conclusion. In the first example, on the other hand, true premises guarantee that the conclusion is false.
I'm not sure if there's a word for the latter category, but there probably should be. "The conjunction of the premises is inconsistent with the conclusion" is not nearly as awesome as, say, "Antivalid"
In the words of a well known amateur pianist:
But Annoyance was talking about logic, not plausible reasoning or probability theory, right? In terms of Aristotelian deductive logic the two errors quoted are pretty much equivalent.
The statement "If P, then Q. Q. P is not ruled out." is correct logic. But it conveys very little information.
How much information is conveyed, the amount we need to update our prior for P, upon learning Q, may be considerable. It depends on p(Q|P) and p(Q|~P)