No one is attempting to prove bleeding P->Q here.

If P -> Q and P, then Q

Sure, and when ~P^Q, then P->Q is still not false, and you can further use it in a proof, in the context of other given statements.

This was never presented as a method to show that P->Q, which arguably can only be shown with data.

With all due respect, get your head out of your arse and read this from what I posted:

While modus ponens is one of the most commonly used argument forms in logic it must not be mistaken for a logical law; rather, it is one of the accepted mechanisms for the construction of deductive proofs that includes the “rule of definition” and the “rule of substitution”.

Emphasis is mine. I cannot scream hard enough to get this simple message across to your flipping head. You are reading it wrong, and if you had done one class of prepositional calculus you would have known, therefore you haven’t.

As for your foundationalist pursuits, most of science advances without getting back to the foundations, just as calculus was in practical use long before it was formally proven. So you see a person (OP) struggling with basic conception and composition of his argument, let alone the formal expression, and you raise the bar to the level of logical foundations of mathematics? If not dishonest, this is utterly unproductive.

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

Quine is the most sane person among your lot. And righteously followed by Thomas Kuhn.

Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.

That was never the task at hand. You are projecting your belief system so hard you cannot even parse the arguments at a functional level. Yet, after an hour or so, suddenly 4 more vote me down, and only in this particular thread. (Since the rest of the comments in the whole post are unaffected, even mine? What the fuck did you go to your philosophy of science SimpleX chat and called for back up?

Pathetic.

For the last time The truth table does not mean that A->B is “proven”. Obviously you have never done propositional calculus on pen and paper, because this misconception is literally worse than OP’s ravings.

You postmodernist you

I stand by the comment. Bringing up Gödel in polite conversation should go straight to the site-wide banable offenses.

Good luck!

This attempt to patronize is futile. You proved you were in bad faith, and I wish not to continue this discussion.

We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.

Still failing to see that we aren’t proving A -> B, but getting its truth value within a proof.

OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea.

I think your goal was the equivalent of what any postmodernist does in deconstructing any given field:

• “Nothing is real”
• “you can’t prove the first axioms within the system”
• “it is all in the historical context”
• “No truth statements are possible”

By the same coin, all the other logical fallacies go out of the window, together with boolean logic and what have you. Even the valid ones.

It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be

How so?

Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.

It is rather that the fact that people who do have something to hide will probably use encryption cannot be refuted by an instance of someone using encryption without having something to hide.

We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen.

This is textbook modus ponens, sorry if you find that disturbing.

you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life

This is unproductive and eventually relativistic. I can’t fathom how you dare bring advanced topics of math/logic fundamentals in a discussion like this. We are talking the kind of stuff that takes 200 pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2, and why it is not correct, or absolute. What is the purpose of that level of meta in a discussion about flipping privacy?

Pregnancy, abortion seeking, sexual orientation of clergy, being trans, all have become matter of life and death level reasons for caring about privacy.

Ah, another one: insurance company might profile you as XYZ subcategory and discriminate against you.

“Yes but you know what data brokers are hiding from you?” I haven’t tried this one, but I will.

In modus ponens you have four cases:

Here, A is “Having sth to hide”, and B “Caring about encryption”. Obviously case b says that although people having something to hide seek out encrypted methods of communication, it is logically accepted that there might be other reasons, even unknown. A more silly example is this: the grass is wet does not necessarily means it has rained. There might be other reasons. But this does not mean that rain does not make the grass wet.

To sum up, the OP could have just said that. It does not change anything anyway. You can’t beat a propaganda apparatus with this “fallacy talk”.

It is widespread propaganda to make everyone who uses private and encrypted tooling as potential criminals. Encrypted chat is not sth clean cut kids do. Simple as that. It is a pushed narrative by those who don’t want encryption.

Everytime a superficial opinion is so strong that is robust to constant debunking and perpetually reprises, it is typically a propaganda apparatus at play.

Having said that, your attempt to appeal to logic is utterly futile, and also in this particular instance, done badly. Mostly because of the imbalanced and non-sequitur rendering the text unintelligible.

This is some BS. What the OP haplessly tries to say is simply modus ponens. What Gödel are you talking about.

tries to frame itself as it is for traditional Christian values

Nazi Germany had a complicated relation to religion. Although promoting relations with Protestant clergy in the pre-war period, there were conspiratorial tendencies in the Nazis either Nordic-washing Christianity or looking toward some kind of self-styled supremacist paganism, which was popular with the SS top leadership.

In the end of the day I don’t think it even matters though. The American Christian-nationalists are the structural equivalence of the Islamic State in that they want to undo secular political entities and unravel modern institutions. It doesn’t matter if some of them belong to some sinister cult. They will do as much evil, and they are not different from mainstream 1930’s Nazism for that matter.

this one is easy to attack

Exactly. Trans representation was as bad as it already were, and then instead of some positive news coverage what you’ve got? Like 700% upward vilification and stigmatization, with the support of many center and center-left media, and huge institutional and billionaire support.

Man I am telling you, there is another Holocaust in the making and people will not believe it happened when it is over.

That book you suggested by this professor On Tyranny is indeed a compulsory reading at this point for every person caring for Western democracy.

Of his own personal experiences Ionesco wrote:

University professors, students, intellectuals were turning Nazi, becoming Iron Guards, one after the other. At the beginning, certainly they were not Nazis. About fifteen of us would get together to talk and to try to find arguments opposing theirs. It was not easy…. From time to time, one of our friends said: “I don’t agree with them, to be sure, but on certain points, nevertheless, I must admit, for example, the Jews …,” etc. And this was a symptom. Three weeks later, this person would become a Nazi. He was caught in the mechanism, he accepted everything, he became a rhinoceros. Towards the end, only three or four of us were still resisting.

Replace Jews with trans and you have a discussion we only have too often with fellow “leftists”.

The borrow checker checks literally that you don’t take foreign things, so there is that.

Oh, I got one of my own: The notion that Linux is for enthusiasts that spend most of the time tweaking their computer, and therefore Linux can’t be used by an end user who just want to get things done.

Close to this is the classic adage: “Linux is only free if you don’t value your time” which is an extension that assumes that extensive tweaking is necessary to get to work, not an option available to the power user.

(But they still complain when Microsoft fucks over their workflow on every update. It is a double standard because Microsoft is “a brand”, so yes, I will say it is a Linux-specific bias.)

disdain for C programmers, from LISP programmers, in the Unix Hater’s Handbook (1994)

I’m definitely looking that up.

John Carmack

He’s great indeed. Thanks for the reference.

Also what he says about LISP reminds me of The Bipolar LISP Programmer article.