Quote:
|
Originally Posted by X Mode I agree. I can see that, but one could draw conclusions about results.
If there's a lot of traffic, then that must be why he's late.
There's a lot of traffic, so he's late.
he's late - result - There's a lot of traffic, and I conclude that's why he's late.
If there's traffic, he's always late. |
Hmm. I suppose the main clause in every 'cause and effect' IF statement can be re-presented as a conclusion; but I'm not sure that every 'epistemic' IF embodies a cause and effect:
1. If there's a lot of traffic, he's always late => he's late, so I conclude that there's a lot of traffic.
(Which may be invalid.)
2. If it's dark outside, it isn't noon => ?It isn't noon, so it's dark outside.
(Which is invalid.)
I suppose in such cases we're always at risk of 'affirming the antecedent':
If P, then Q.
Q, therefore P.
MrP (or Q)