From Iron Chariots Wiki
Revision as of 18:12, 8 November 2009 by Murphy (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Certainty of outcomes Vs possibility of outcomes?

I'm sill a little new to this whole wiki editing thing so i thought i'd better make it a discussion rather than put my foot in it by changing the page willy-nilly. Where you've written "if P is false, then P → Q is true." would it not be more accurate to say "if P is false, then P → Q may still be true."? after all, if (P), or (P and Q) are both false as per the last two rows in the table, we don't necessarily know that P → Q is true, just that it might be true and that we have insufficient data to rule it out. --Murphy 20:04, 7 November 2009 (CST)

I think I know where you're going with this...
Material implication explores the possibility of Q and ¬Q in the presence of P and ¬P.
Logical implication explores the causative effect of P and ¬P on Q and ¬Q.
The information and example is attempting to explain both material and logical implication in the context of material implication alone. Thus, the article as a whole could seem to be saying ¬P ⇒ (P ⇒ Q), which is false.
Material Implication Logical Implication
P → Q P ⇒ Q
P Q Valid P demands Q Valid P causes Q
P ¬Q Invalid P prevents ¬Q Invalid P cannot cause ¬Q
¬P Q Valid ¬P allows Q Invalid ¬P is not the cause of Q
¬P ¬Q Valid ¬P allows ¬Q Invalid ¬P is not the cause of ¬Q
¬P allows either Q or ¬Q, but does not cause either.
In either case, we've shown logically that ¬P cannot be used to establish either Q or ¬Q. Only P can.
You could explain the difference between the two, and perhaps even include the chart/info I just wrote. Another level of confusion for the already confused creationists :) --Jaban 15:52, 8 November 2009 (CST)
I think i kind of get it, but even by that definition of material implication (as in not a causal link), isn't the truth of the statement (¬P allowes ¬Q) a completely separate issue to the truth of the original statement that (P → Q).
As far as i can see, (¬P allows ¬Q) would be similar to (¬fruitbowl allows ¬apple) which isn't necessarily false, but it doesn't really tell us anything about the truth of the statement (fruit bowl → apple). I just don't see how based on (particularly in row four) insufficient data, you can't make a definitive claim about the truth of statement (P → Q) one way or the other.
Likewise in the logical implication side of your table, the last two rows don't necessarily invalidate the statement that (P ⇒ Q). In row three, perhaps Q was in this case caused by X, but that doesn't necessarily mean Q isn't also caused by P. And in row four we have the same problem. Insufficient data to say one way or the other. You could could make the same statement as in the material implication. (¬P allows ¬Q), but that doesn't necessarily tell us whether (P ⇒ Q) is actually true.
I guess what I'm getting at is that if we've shown logically that (¬P cannot be used to establish either Q or ¬Q. Only P can), then how can we make any True, false, valid, or invalid claims about the statements (P → Q) or (P ⇒ Q) based on the last two rows of the table. Shouldn't they read "insufficient data" or "unknown" or something (@_@?) Sorry, i don't mean to be an ass or anything, I'm just not quite seeing it.--Murphy 17:12, 8 November 2009 (CST)
Personal tools
wiki navigation