From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 12:07:48 PDT
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > "Only A if B" is a perfectly well-formed way of saying that out of a set > of consequences, only A happens as a result of condition B being true. Without specifying that set of consequences, it's certainly not well defined in this sense. "Only A" to me means, A and (not B) and (not C) and (not D)... In some contexts, it's certainly valid to interpret "only A if B" as "if A then B" or, better respecing the causal sense of it, "if (not B) then (not A)". As in, "I only argue if I think I'm right." (If I argue, then I must think I'm right. If I don't think I'm right, then I don't argue. Would any of your claim these three statements aren't essentially identical?) In particular, this is clearly the way to interpret 185:9, which was Alan's point. -Jesse -- Rule Date: 2002-06-04 19:08:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST