General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Believe it or not: Karl Marx is making a comeback [View all]Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)There is a fundamental difference between the conditions of an argument, the argument itself and that argument's conclusion.
In pure logic, you draw a conclusion from a proof. The proof is made up of conditions or conditionals which act as a logical chain leading to the conclusion. Conditional proof posits that the conclusion (the consequent) necessarily follows the conditions (antecedent) if the conditions are true. Which means that IF the conditionals are true, and the argument is valid, THEN the conclusion is true. This is the classic "if/then" proof which you undoubtedly first learned about in grade school.
In inductive reasoning, the argument structure is very similar but probability is introduced.
If A, then very likely B.
A
Very likely B
What you're saying is that my argument (or the idea contained within it), which follows the conditionals, is very likely responsible for the deaths of millions. You yourself are making an assertion in the form of a proof. What I'm asking you to do is show me your own proof with the conditionals, the argument and the conclusion, so that I can understand exactly what it is that you think my argument contains that is responsible for the deaths of millions.
Does this make sense?