John, this conversation makes me HAPPY! And not although, but because you
write:
>Please don't do this... in your message about logical
>thinking you have entirely missed my point.
With my next sentences, I hope to catch your curiosity, as I have tried
with my mail to which you responded. But I recognise, that there is a
danger of making you seriously angry with me. So I beg for your
forgiveness when you read on.
John, in the sentence I cited above, you are talking to me. But I do read
it also differently: as the fallacy (If p then q. Not p. THEREFORE not q)
"talking" to your example (p = go to the mall, q = always buy toys). The
fallacy "talking" to John: "Please don't do this...in your example you
have entirely missed my point."
>It simply is not true that the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent
>depends upon other "facts."
A big YES.
Nor does my example depend upon other facts.
A similar big NO. (I agree that "facts" just refer to content of p and q,
independent of whether such content is real or hypothetical.)
I hope, you can put your anger aside for a moment if it is coming up ("I
have told Winfried to distinguish form and content. What does the form of
a fallacy care about the example?? I told him that the form is valid
independent of the content of an example!!!") and assume for the rest of
this mail, that I have something to say that might be sensible. I hope you
are curious enough to follow my argument without too hot feelings.
Pure logic is about the relation of terms (RTL - relation of terms logic),
independent of the content of the terms. In pure logic, "if p then q" is
true/valid if, and only if (the common expression for necessity and
sufficiency) p and q are related as p being a specific to a more general
q. Example: p: a black bird, q: black. "IF a black bird THEN black" is
valid. "IF black THEN a black bird" is not valid. It is (hopefully)
obvious that one cannot conclude from "NOT a black bird" to "NOT black" -
what ever the not black bird is, it still can be black.
So, that's my big YES.
Now, what about the big NO with your example? First I want to make sure
about another YES. You are completely right to say:
>The only valid way to argue against what I just wrote is the way At argued
>-- that there are other systems of logic.
So, what I claim is, that you have used another system of logic for your
example. Let us try to understand your example in terms of RTL. "IF I go
to the mall THEN I always buy a toy." It is NOT obvious, why "I always buy
a toy" is a general term to a specific "I go to the mall." You have made
it a specific, by mentioning another specific - the shop at the corner. So
buying a toy became the general to these both specifics. You needed this
additional bit of information in order to make your example fit to RTL.
My answer to your contribution "missed the point completely", because I
took your example (which you meant to exemplify a fallacy of RTL) and
discussed it in the realm of the more appropriate logic: IF cause THEN
effect (CEL - cause effect logic). It IS obvious, that "I always buy a
toy" is an effect of the cause "I go to the mall". It is in CEL, where all
the questions arise, which I asked, and which are sensible in CEL: What
set of causes will result in the effect sufficiently? Is it necessary for
the effect or are there other possible causes?
CEL behaves differently with respect to RTL-fallacies. If it makes sense
at all, CEL usually revert the direction of IF...THEN. To show this, I
chose the LO-example, in short "IF all five disciplines THEN learning
organization". Five somewhat GENERAL causes work together to create a
SPECIFIC effect!
The advantage of this example is, that it can also easily be read in RTL:
"IF learning organisation THEN (for example) team learning". It fits
perfectly to your fallacy: "NOT learning organisation. Therefore not team
learning? You can't conclude this!" You are absolutely right. The fallacy
is valid. But now the CEL-logician will shout out loudly: "You have
committed the fallacy of cause-effect-reversal!"
John, I could say more, but not without making assumptions on how your
mind works - so nothing, I would send to the list. If you are interested
in listening to those assumption (just for fun), you may contact me
privately.
Let me conclude this contribution with some question, with respect to RTL
and CEL:
What is a dogmatist mainly interested in?
What is the meaning of verification?
What is a scientist mainly interested in?
What is the meaning of falsification?
Who has more problems to understand the other and why?
What might have been the main obstacle in the dispute between Galileo and the pope?
What happened during the period of enlightenment historically?
When the topic of logic is the study of form regardless what the content
is, then RTL and CEL and may be other logical systems should relate
somehow to At de Langes form of creative learning - the seven
essentialities. Have a try for yourself. I will sketch the relations as I
see them in my answer to At's response to my experience with the LEM (Law
of the excluded middle) and the front structure.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>