3 ms·
> "If p then q" does not imply "If q then p." My original comment is challenging whether "p then q" is valid in the first place by asking if the inverse would
by cj 2y ago
> "If p then q" does not imply "If q then p."
My original comment is challenging whether "p then q" is valid in the first place by asking if the inverse would be true as a thought experiment. (Neither is true IMO)
Just because someone has certain values doesn't mean they vote a certain way.
Just because they vote a certain way doesn't mean they have certain values.
"p" (who you voted for) and "q" (your values) are largely independent for a large percentage of voters.
- MajimasEyepatch 2y agoMy point is that the validity and soundness of the inverse proposition has no bearing on the validity and soundness of the original proposition, so you’ve proposed a meaningless experiment. I also think that your hypothesis that voting and values are not connected is false, but that’s a separate issue.
- cj 2y agoI understand your point and I agree with it. I didn't respond to it directly because it wasn't contributing to the discussion at hand. But I agree with your point that an inverse proposition doesn't always hold!