I'm slightly offended since I used to teach formal reasoning (and I always make a strong effort to avoid using it when constructing any arguments). You can alwa

I'm slightly offended since I used to teach formal reasoning (and I always make a strong effort to avoid using it when constructing any arguments). You can always arbitrarily translate any parts of any phrase into any atomic sentence, and reframe certain claims as a series of propositions. None of your propositions that you claim I made are actually within the content of my argument. And especially for things that require historical, social, and political context to understands, it is completely useless to employ a system which pretends to be divorced from all those things. How are you supposed to evaluate a claim about the health effects of the industrial revolution using formal logic? How do you even know I was trying to use formal logic in my argument, or that I even cared if it made sense in a very particular logical system which has far more relevance for mathematics and computer programming than rhetoric and persuasion. I never made a single evidential claim nor could I, since this would be an area where empirical research is lacking. I was making an inference, which you made no attempt to directly engage with.