"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:51:26 GMT, "William Hershman"
> wrote:
> >
> >It is important to note that this logic only applies if we first accept
> >without question that a=>b. As in any axiomatic system, we begin with
> >definitions which we accept, and rules which we accept without proof.
Only
> >then can we use logic to reach conclusions. If we disagree on the
> >definitions, we can't go any further.
>
> Then do you challenge the truth of either premiss or
> the form in which the syllogism is laid out?
>
> 1) If A, then B
> 2) A (ponens)
> therefore
> 3) B
>
> 1) If I abstain from farmed animal products (antecedent), then
> I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (consequent).
> 2) I abstain from farmed animal products (affirms the antecedent)
> therefore
> 3) I cause less farmed animals to suffer and die (affirms the consequent)
>


I don't challenge either one. I can't. I'm saying that in this example,
we'd all have to agree that the B is a consequence of A. I'm not sure if
what you have labeled as 1) is true or not. Therefore, we cannot apply
the rules of logic. It is possible that A does not cause B.