5 ms·
I don't get why this logic violates intuition. The proposed solution in the article is fairly obvious and intuitive. Just because two logical statements are equ
by immad 19y ago
I don't get why this logic violates intuition. The proposed solution in the article is fairly obvious and intuitive. Just because two logical statements are equivalent doesn't mean evidence for one gives evidence for the other:
"The origin of the paradox lies in the fact that the statements "all Ravens are black" and "all non-black things are non-ravens" are indeed logically equivalent, while the act of finding a black raven is not at all equivalent to finding a non-black non-raven. Confusion is common when these two notions are thought to be identical."
- jsnx 19y agoIf two logical statements are equivalent, then yes indeed, evidence that implies one of them (in classical logic) implies the other one. The solution is indeed intuitive but is not formalizable in classical logic. Classical logic does not, in general, jibe with the intuition: consider the case of the negative antecedent: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/mat-imp.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/mat-imp.htm For example, the statement, "If unicorns have one horn, then I am the Queen of England." is logically true.
- immad 19y agohmm, I see the point. But isn't that just the limitations of classical logic? Just seems like a question of semantics rather than a clash between logic and intuition, but maybe I don't get it
- jsnx 19y agoIt is a clash between classical logic and intuition, which is the point -- it indicates a difficulty with applying classical logic, and encourages us to take up other avenues.
- zoltz 19y agoThe part of the Wikipedia article you quote has nothing to do with what you quote it for.
- immad 19y agoYep, you are probably correct. The wikipedia quote is more of a restatement of the paradox. But from that I thought my statement inferred.