4 ms·
> That is the observation which is false. The bit you quoted is not the observation (as I understood it); the observation is the whole conditional "if A then B
by dllthomas 3y ago
> That is the observation which is false.
The bit you quoted is not the observation (as I understood it); the observation is the whole conditional "if A then B". "A is false" is one of the ways the observation can be true.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoA in this case doesn't appear to be true, making the "if A then B" discussion a distraction at best and disingenuous at worst. Based on your lack of response to the substance of my post, I take it you understand and agree with that part, and your quibbles are purely semantic.
- dllthomas 3y ago> making the "if A then B" discussion a distraction at best and disingenuous at worst. My concern was that it sounded to Tom like people were disputing "if A then B", rather than disputing B by negating A, and that people were therefore talking past each other. > I take it you understand and agree with that part, I wasn't weighing in on that part in the first place. I don't dispute or endorse what you've said, but (if you care) do readily acknowledge that it is of the correct structure to address "the observation" if they in fact match reality. I said at the start that I don't know whether that's the case. > and your quibbles are purely semantic. I was weighing in on the semantics because it seemed to me like a semantic mismatch was leading to misunderstanding and increasing hostility, and I hoped I could help clarify.
- tome 3y agoThank you for your efforts. I have to say I'm quite confused about exactly what is in dispute.