Can you identify the antecedent and consequent?

1.6.4.1 Exercises
Can you tell the antecedent from the consequent?

For this video: Do 1.6.4.1 Exercises (p. 29)
For next video: Read 1.6.5 Biconditional (pp. 30-31)

 

[Patmahan__]

Love this my friend. So grateful for what your doing 💫💫

[SceleToon_and_Games]

i subbed just for the aesthetic of the channel i hope you thrive

[ticklemeelmo]

Interesting video. So in the sentence "Your mother will stay with us only if we kennel the dog and steam clean the carpets, " is mother staying with us the antecedent and kenneling and steaming the consequent? Even though the consequent obviously happens before the antecedent?

[justine]

hello sir may i ask what is the antecedent and consequent in this sentence, " A daily exercise is a necessary condition for a healthy life ."

[davidelks]

Genesis 5:24 KJV
24  And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
antecedent: "for God took him"
consequent: "and he was not"
Is this correct?

[thebluebeyond]

If the antecedent and the consequent are both false what happens to the Conditional proposition?

[iversonadion]

what is the antecedent and consequent in this statement, "I'll be a millionaire when I win monopoly"?

[telishalee]

Catherine has a Catahoula is a sufficient condition for Darla has a dachshund, unless Bob doesn't like beagles.

[evoov]

How I was taught logic. Was to recognize formal and informal fallacies. By philosophy of science teachers no less. God those guys are a royal pain in the ass. Ever heard of Skeptic's Dictionary? He taught at the school I went to. And was the Dean. 🤣 There's ppl who identity as atheist. Then there's Atheist with a capital A -Atheist-. The Michael Shermer, James Randi types. Who only really use the correspondent truth theory. And are extra critical towards pragmatic truth theory.

So yeah I know Skepticism pretty well. Or I did anyways. Been a long time. Basically we disagree with something. Then explain it away with neuroscience.

Anyways the kind of logic I was taught. Didn't focus so much on the if then aspect. Or the all or nothing. What i mean is goes something like this.

If Mother then Female
Stacy is a mother
Therefore Stacy is a female

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Like to me? I can't see the difference between those two examples. Like why they're different. Really didn't get into that. Is what was more about the geometrical structure of a sentence. P➡Q -P therefore -Q Very binary. Like how you would imagine computer code being written.

To get through ir. I thought logic kinda works like. The Subject is informed by the predicate of a sentence.

It kinda works like how Plotinus describes the potentiality of something say "wood." Is said to be in-Formed into the likeness of a chair. Or maybe it was Aristotle? I forget. Need to go back to school and get a degree in this stuff.

So I try to think of affirm to mean to be in-Form. And deny as to be de-Form. And when those get confused. It becomes misin-Formed. Or a logical fallacy.

Logic than takes on this function. As a tool by which we take the potentiality of a belief and inform, misinform, and disinform* it with an idea.

Like this is what was going through my head. When I watched the examples given in the video.

1 affirming the antecedent. 2 affirming the consequent (formal fallacy) 3 denying the consequent 4 denying the antecedent (formal fallacy) 5 affirming the consequent (formal fallacy) 6 affirming the antecedent