A short note on logic
In arguments where someone claims “A can’t be true because it would cause B and B is undesirable”, it’s probably a safe bet that A doesn’t cause B, because it’s being mentioned as supposedly obvious by the same sort of person who doesn’t recognize their own desires have no impact on whether something is true or not.
Share This
Yes, this is a point about “thickness” in more ways than one!
I don’t think I can concur with this one. Simply because Jones fails to recognise that her desires have no impact on whether something is or is not true doesn’t mean that A (e.g. inflation of the money supply) doesn’t cause B (e.g. the business cycle). Indeed, whether A causes B is entirely independent of Jones’s desires or her ability to correctly recognise things.
Or maybe I’m just being needlessly picky here.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
Good point, allixpeake!