Re: An argument against modus ponens

translogi wrote:
On 3 Sep, 21:54, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Modus Ponens:
If P, then Q.
P. Therefore, Q.

The "If" announces a truth value. So "if P" requires the consideration
of another element or object through which a truth value may be
ascertained. If we eliminate the ontological and existential status with
which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens reduces to

P and R, then Q
P. Therefore, Q

And eliminating the subjective "then" and "therefore" we have modus ponens
P and R and Q
P and Q

CONCLUDING
Plainly, modus ponens is invalid. The truth value operator "if" ushers
in another object, while "P." does not. The argumentative form may be
correct, but modus ponens describes two different object events - "P and
R" and "P".

DISCUSSIONS
Modus Ponens doesn't get off the ground - it describes two different
object events. But let's take a closer look at its subjective or
existential argumentative form which may yield something of worth.

Modus ponens
If P, then Q = P. Therefore, Q

Which reduces to
If, then = then, therefore

This says that existential possibility is equivalent to existential
reality when each identifies the same object. It also says that
reference to an object (which is the way that "possibility" presents its
objects) is equivalent to the object itself.

Modus ponens, in that case, is a convoluted form of the transcendentally
real notion that reference and self-reference are the same. Accordingly,
(Godellians take note) any proof which employs modus ponens and which
also relies on the distinction between self-reference and reference is
scuppered from the outset.

What fun.

In this post you use YOURSELF modus ponens atleast FOUR times

in line 5 So (is equivalent to an Therefore )
line 7 /8 is an if.... then ----- construction. (or is this to
obvious)

line 13 contans a conclusion ( we have modus ponens...) how did you
come to that?

I thought modus ponens used two different descriptions of objects and tried to make out that they were the same: If P announces P and R, but P. announces only P.

line 17 CONCLUDING (again how did you come to that ?)

And that all by refering to modus ponens as a rule of logic in another
post...
But still you argue against modus ponens.

Try to do it yourself...
Give an good example

see for example
What the Tortoise Said to Achilles (Lewis Carroll)
http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html


I waan't arguing against modus ponens, but against the form in which it is typically presented. Modus Ponens always neglects the hidden object (R).
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An argument against modus ponens
    ... Plainly, modus ponens is invalid. ... The truth value operator "if" ushers ... real notion that reference and self-reference are the same. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: An argument against modus ponens
    ... Plainly, modus ponens is invalid. ... The truth value operator "if" ushers ... existential argumentative form which may yield something of worth. ... real notion that reference and self-reference are the same. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • An argument against modus ponens
    ... So "if P" requires the consideration of another element or object through which a truth value may be ascertained. ... If we eliminate the ontological and existential status with which the term "if" baptises its objects, then modus ponens reduces to ... But let's take a closer look at its subjective or existential argumentative form which may yield something of worth. ... It also says that reference to an object is equivalent to the object itself. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: An argument against modus ponens
    ... Therefore, in the context of R, Q." ... Plainly, modus ponens is invalid. ... real notion that reference and self-reference are the same. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Question on theorems
    ... and modus ponens is the rule of inference and f is a ... we assign truth values in to each of the atomic sentences, and then, depending on the connectives, the whole sentence can be said to be true or false. ... So each sentence has a precise truth value either T or F. And sentence logic is decidable. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading