3 ms·
Very interesting, thanks. The idea of "supporting evidence" is murkier than it first appears. Also the _scope_ of a proposition is unclear; "all ravens are bl
by dsjoerg 12y ago
Very interesting, thanks. The idea of "supporting evidence" is murkier than it first appears. Also the _scope_ of a proposition is unclear; "all ravens are black" has a scope that is clearly constrained to ravens, but the logically equivalent proposition "all non-black things are not ravens" has a scope of all non-black things.
- chaz72 12y agoThe first proposition tests the blackness of ravens. The second proposition tests the non-raven-ness of non-black things. When abbreviated, it sure looks like a paradox.