From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Fri, 6 Sep 2024, Anton Shepelev wrote:   
      
   > I wrote:   
   >   
   >> Moore's modus ponens argument is of the form:   
   >>   
   >>   1. Given    : A => B   
   >>   2. Given    : Not B   
   >>   3. Therefore: Not A   
   >>   
   >> which is a violoation of the basic Boolean logic, because   
   >> B may be true and A false. B may follow from correct   
   >> precept C; and anything at all may fallow from an   
   >> incorrect precept.  A need not be correct for B to be   
   >> true.   
   >                                              _    _   
   > My comment is wrong and irrelevant: A => B == B => A .   
   >   
   > The problem is Moore's application of this perfectly correct   
   > identity indirectly, by subsituting "I know that X" for X   
   > and "I don't know that X" for the negation of X.  I still   
   > have not read Moore essay, so this is just to let you know   
   > of my error.   
   >   
      
   Thank you very much for telling me. Would be interested in hearing about   
   your opinion _if_ you think it's interesting enough to read. I have not   
   read it but Wittgenstein started (I think) a commentary on this, and he   
   was a fan of Moores and thought he could improve on him.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)