PHIL 210 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Modus Tollens, Modus Ponens
26 May 2020
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
This invalid form is often confused with the valid form modus ponens: defeasibility, the quality of ampliative reasoning that leaves it open to amendment. It is not the case that p (premise 2). Therefore, it is not the case that q (conclusion). " Failure to make conclusion reasonable even in inductive or heuristic terms. A matter of how rational exchange is conducted, if it is to be reliable, fertile, etc. Affirming the consequent: if p then q, q. Therefore, p: only if the product is faulty is the company liable for damages. So the company is liable for damages: affirming the consequent, the first premise is equivalent to if the company is liable for damages, then the product is faulty. so the second premise affirms the consequent. Denying the antecedent: if p then q, not p. If love hurts, then it"s not worth falling in love. Thus, it is indeed worth falling in love.
