The Bible contains numerous inconsistencies.
one accepts both A) 'Words don't exist.' and B) 'Words do exist.' as premises … which somehow allows for sentences to exist as well as not exist.)Īlternatively, understand that while the syllogism is logically valid, because one of the premises must be false the syllogism is not logically sound and therefore the conclusion cannot be drawn. So now it has been proven that words don't exist…Įither reject that reasoning behind the principle of explosion (say, by rejecting that disjunction or that disjunctive syllogism) - or - just simply say no to assuming two contradictory premises (otherwise one would have to claim that one accepts yet more contradictions, i.e. This also appears to be perfectly acceptable here because if it is said that at least one of A or C are true, then when it turns out A is not true (which is B, which has been accepted as a premise), at least it can be held that C is true. P1: All ice cream is frozen or words don't exist. Now use that disjunction for a disjunctive syllogism: (Of which at least the first one is true because it was assumed as a premise.) All ice cream is frozen and words don't exist.This statement appears to be perfectly acceptable here because it holds true under any of these three circumstances:
'All ice cream is frozen or words don't exist.'
To do so, construct a disjunction out of A and C: Now, just to show that it's possible, say one wants to use those two premises to prove that: C) 'Words don't exist'. Here is a "Plain English" attempt to apply this rule and follow the logic up to a conclusion.Īssume two contradictory premises: A) 'All ice cream is frozen.' B) 'Not all ice cream is frozen.'
0 kommentar(er)
