= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
endoself comments on Rationality Quotes: January 2011 - 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 (268)
Affirming the consequent is a totally different fallacy -
"If P, then Q and Q is true; therefore P".
Denying the antecedent with P and Q:
P -> Q
~P
Therefore ~Q
Affirming the consequent with ~Q and ~P
~Q -> ~P
~P
Therefore ~Q
Wow, I feel kind of bad just writing those chains of "deduction". Anyways, the same result was concluded from the same minor premise, the only difference is the major premise, and P -> Q and ~Q -> ~P are equivalent.
edit: formatting