Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Assuming 'Always, if every A is B, then every C is D' hol... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The proposition 'Always, if every A is B, then every C is D' implies 'Never, if every A is B, then not every C is D'

    Assuming 'Always, if every A is B, then every C is D' holds, if 'Never, if every A is B, then not every C is D' did not hold, then 'Sometimes, if every A is B, then not every C is D' would be true

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    Existential quantifier (Sometimes)(Used in 'Sometimes, if every A is B, then not every C is D' to mean this situation occurs in at least some cases)
    A word that means at least one example exists, or that something is true at least some of the time, rather than never or always.
    Logical conditional (if-then statement)(The entire statement is built on if-then relationships)
    A type of statement that says 'if one thing is true, then another thing must be true.' It's testing a cause-and-effect relationship between two ideas.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Logical contradiction(as what the stratified framework avoids)
    When two statements cannot both be true at the same time because they directly oppose each other. For example, 'it is raining' and 'it is not raining' are contradictory.
    Negation (Not/Never)(Used in 'Never' and 'not every C is D' to flip the meaning of claims)
    The logical opposite or reversal of a statement; if something is true, its negation is false, and vice versa.
    Universal quantifier (Every/All)(Used in 'every A is B' to mean all A's are B's)
    A word that means we're talking about ALL members of a group with no exceptions, rather than just some of them.

    Related

    If 'Sometimes, if every A is B, then not every C is D' is true, then 'Not always...The proposition 'Always, if every A is B, then every C is D' implies 'Never, if ...This contradicts the initial assumption, so the implication must hold

    Similar

    If 'Sometimes, if every A is B, then not every C is D' is true, then '...94%The proposition 'Always, if every A is B, then every C is D' implies '...92%If the (a-C)aa proposition ('Always, if every A is B, then every C is ...83%Even if A is B, not everything which can be A might be capable of bein...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ibn-sina-logic
    View source passageHide passage
    In Qiyās VII.1, Avicenna considers a basic set of quantified conditional statements with quantified antecedents and consequents. Assuming the four basic forms of quantified conditional statements (a-\(\mathbb{C}\)), (e-\(\mathbb{C}\)), (i-\(\mathbb{C}\)), and (o-\(\mathbb{C}\)) and all permutations of a-, e-, i-, o-propositions as antecedents and consequents, Avicenna generates four groups of sixteen conditional propositions (see Appendix B) and argues that any of those forms is logically equi

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective