|
Beatrice is being misleading with how she explains Hempel's Raven. The contrapositive of "All ravens are black" is "All things that are not black are not ravens.", and the only thing that can disprove it is a thing that is a raven and is not black. Beatrice compares having to search through all ravens and all non-ravens; in fact, your two basic strategies here are to search through either all ravens or all things that are not black. If you search through all non-ravens and show that none of them are black, like Beatrice does here...  ...you've shown "All things* that are not ravens are not black", the inverse, whose contrapositive is "All black things are ravens", the converse. The inverse/converse is a related statement, but definitely different. The other examples they used basically do the same thing: to prove "Everyone in the world but me is foolish" by contrapositive, you have to check every non-foolish thing and show that it's not a person in the world that's not you. In the sense that this is very much a game of logic, I think that she's deliberately trying to muddle things to confuse Battler, as well as the fact that this search for the culprit isn't really a clean-cut set inclusion question like the "All X are Y" ones are. *She restricts to merely birds, but the Wikipedia article, which I glanced at to make sure I had this thing down correctly, talks about all things.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:55 |
|