Posted: May 14, 2019 5:40 pm
Spearthrower wrote:I wanted to share this short article because I think it's got a great explanation of a particular form of argumentation which seems to be becoming very popular these days.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... doctrines/
Like Thommo, I enjoyed this too. One thought occurs though...
If "Motte, hence Bailey" is false, then am I right that it doesn't follow that "Not Bailey, hence Not Motte"? I looked up Modus Tollens, which says:
If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A.
However if B doesn't follow from A, then Not B doesn't (on its own) imply Not A.
In other words, just because they distract attention with an easily debunked Bailey, doesn't mean in itself that their Motte is also unsound. So it needs to be separately debunked?
I'm not an accomplished logician, so happy to be schooled here.