Another case of someone who intuited the modal fallacy early on?
www.emilkirkegaard.com
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/#2 So, on the face of it, this thesis has here been inferred from Leibniz’ Law. Moore observes, however, that the step from (1) to (2) is invalid; it confuses the necessity of a connection with the necessity of the consequent. In ordinary language this distinction is not clearly marked, although it is easy to draw it with a suitable formal language.
Another case of someone who intuited the modal fallacy early on?
Another case of someone who intuited the…
Another case of someone who intuited the modal fallacy early on?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/#2 So, on the face of it, this thesis has here been inferred from Leibniz’ Law. Moore observes, however, that the step from (1) to (2) is invalid; it confuses the necessity of a connection with the necessity of the consequent. In ordinary language this distinction is not clearly marked, although it is easy to draw it with a suitable formal language.