I can tell you’re really proud of these replies, but I’m afraid they don’t actually make sense.
You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn’t happen. However, “not P” doesn’t actually prove anything about the implication.
Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!
The syllogism P (you read something) then Q (you learn something) presumes a) you can process information contained within the written word and b) you have the capability of learning. While not conclusively falsified by these exchange, a postpostivist interpretation suggests that the preponderance of the evidence rests with the counterfactual. No need for P to actually take place. Thanks for playing, best of luck in your future endeavors.
My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.
I can tell you’re really proud of these replies, but I’m afraid they don’t actually make sense.
You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn’t happen. However, “not P” doesn’t actually prove anything about the implication.
Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!
The syllogism P (you read something) then Q (you learn something) presumes a) you can process information contained within the written word and b) you have the capability of learning. While not conclusively falsified by these exchange, a postpostivist interpretation suggests that the preponderance of the evidence rests with the counterfactual. No need for P to actually take place. Thanks for playing, best of luck in your future endeavors.