What is hard to get about this? If X is a proposition "All B are C" and Y is a proposition "All B are Not C" then X and Y have a logically contradictory relationship such that if X is a fact then Y is not a fact.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 9:30 amI am trying my best to get what is your point by translating them to empirical matters.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 9:18 amNo you haven't. You removed the entailment. To say we can see through walls with x-rays is not "not-p" when p was we can't see through walls with our eyes.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 9:02 am
Strawman again!
I am very well aware and agree totally with the Law of Non-Contradiction which is;You aren't fooling anyone by arranging it so that X and Y don't entail each other's false status.
- In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
But again, the important thing here is that you knew you did need to resolve the contradiction for your example to make sense.
You agree with me because everyone in the world agrees with the point I have made here, because it is so basic and obvious.
What I have done is to project p = not-p but in different sense.
I have been doing that all the time.
Your problem is you are too stuck in one paradigm and unable to shift that is why you always see my points as contradictory.
Remember the thing I wrote that you were supposed to be arguiong against was...
You have no right to use the logical construct that if X says Y is false, and if Y says X is false, one or both of X an Y must be false.
In your treatment of what is a fact, X and Y are both TRUE.
You didn't argue against that point. You created an example where X and Y say different things, but don't entail each other being untrue.
the problem with that approach is that "it is wrong to drown kittens in a sack" and "nothing you do to animals has moral outcomes" are two statements that cannot be true if the other is true. And you are trying to get away with arguing that they are both true simultaneously.
If I cannot get what you intended, that is not my fault but rather your communication.
If you want me to see your point, suggest you give me more real empirical examples instead of X, Y or Z symbols.
All your stuff about facts being "facts" simply by virtue of there being anyone in the world who says they are, runs foul of this.
Your seeing through wooden walls example doesn't work FOR YOU because to put it together you had to remove the part where one entails the other being untrue. You made them non-contradictory.
"It's too dark to see" and "I can see fine" stop being contradictions if you create circumstances where one participant in the conversation is a murderer burying the other person alive.