Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

1) if B then A 2) if not B, then not A. Which implies if A then B.

1) if B then A

2) if not B, then not A. Which implies if A then B.

... but then he went on to say "How can an equivalent argument have explanatory power?" which seemed, to me, to assume that "if B then A" and "if A then B" are equivalent (which they are not).

I read that statement as implying that argument A is equivalent to argument B. (Not (1) and (2), which are statements about arguments A and B)

And, if A implies B and B implies A, then it seems to me that A and B have to be equivalent to each other.

Pick a username and password for your Less Wrong and Less Wrong Wiki accounts. You will receive an email to verify your account.

Create account

Already have an account and just want to login?

Login

Forgot your password?

## Comments (101)

Best*0 points [-]... but then he went on to say "How can an equivalent argument have explanatory power?" which seemed, to me, to assume that "if B then A" and "if A then B" are equivalent (which they are not).

I read that statement as implying that argument A is equivalent to argument B. (Not (1) and (2), which are statements

aboutarguments A and B)And, if A implies B

andB implies A, then it seems to me that A and B have to be equivalent to each other.