Given my belief that X is false, is it still possible for me to agree that if X were true, then Y?
1
-
1Could you maybe say a little more about why you think it might and/or might not be the case?– Paul RossSep 9, 2018 at 12:56
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
Yes, absolutely.
This is a common technique in both informal and formal logic.
In informal logic, this is called "ex hypothesi"
In more formal treatment, this is exactly how a conditional proof works. i.e, we make an assumption and then wind up with a "If this assumption is true, then ..." as our conclusion.
Given my belief that X is false, is it still possible for me to agree that if X were true, then Y?
It would unavoidable using classical logic. ~X => (X => Y) is a tautology. You can prove it with a truth table. In fact, it corresponds to the last two lines of the truth table where X is false. It doesn't matter whether Y is true or false.
Knowing nothing about Y, not even if it is true or false, we can infer from X being false that X => Y will always be true. Y seems to come from out of nowhere and yet this is a legitimate, commonly used method of proof (the so-called Principle of Explosion -- from a falsehood, all things follow). I often use it myself.
-
1+1 For the link to the truth table software and the statement of the proposition. Sep 10, 2018 at 16:15
This is a part of the mathematical and philosophical proof concept of reductio ad absurdam, which consists of proving that A implies B and that B is false.
For example, the Wikipedia article uses the concept of the smallest positive rational number. If there was one, we could divide it by 2 and still have a rational number which will be smaller than the smallest one.
-
2