I know almost no philosophy so please simplify all feedback. While I understand this Analysis for the example, I still don't understand the general, but deeper reasons for the possible failure of transitivity for material conditionals? I rewrite the Analysis here just with the letters:

For brevity, define 'gone' = 'gone to the party'.
Analysis: In this scenario, while it is true that had P gone, then A would have gone,
and it is true that if A would have gone, then M would have gone,
it is NOT true that had P gone, then M would have gone.
If A had gone to the party, P still would not have gone, but M would have gone (because he heard about P's arrest). The first ... and ... second premise[s are] true. This exceptional case proves that this form of argument is invalid, because it overlooks the possibility that
even if P had gone, M would still not have gone...

  • There is clearly something missing. First clue: where does the reference to arrest come from? I presume we need that missing info for the example to make sense, because it doesn't. – jobermark Nov 2 '14 at 19:56
  • @jobermark Thanks for your comment. Accordant with my reading of that website, it only introduces the 'reference to arrest' in that Analysis, but not in the actual Example. Does this help? What else is 'missing'? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Nov 3 '14 at 3:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.