Reasoning versus Tactics: Can you show (S implies T) by demanding that others

[PseuTonym]

… explain how it is imaginable for a scenario to arise with S true and T false?

Ordinarily, there is a notion that the person who makes a claim accepts an obligation to attempt to support the claim. What if the claim isn’t something that stands alone, but is instead one step in some reasoning?

The claim “S implies T” might not be explicitly made, but both questioning of the claim and a mere attempt to draw attention to the claim can evoke or elicit clear indications of impatience and displeasure, and also evoke or elicit portrayals of the situation as an unmotivated and childish inability to understand and believe one elementary step accepted by all who are mature, educated, etc.

 

[Usagi]

Can you give an example?

 

[jamesjim]

Yes, your notion of the implication of explanation and proof is understood and ordinary, however…rarely, do claims stand alone, as do atoms (hard facts). They usually combine with other facts to create a larger picture.

Can you please speak with more specificity?

 

[Vonsalza]

… explain how it is imaginable for a scenario to arise with S true and T false?

Ordinarily, there is a notion that the person who makes a claim accepts an obligation to attempt to support the claim. What if the claim isn’t something that stands alone, but is instead one step in some reasoning?

The claim “S implies T” might not be explicitly made, but both questioning of the claim and a mere attempt to draw attention to the claim can evoke or elicit clear indications of impatience and displeasure, and also evoke or elicit portrayals of the situation as an unmotivated and childish inability to understand and believe one elementary step accepted by all who are mature, educated, etc.

When the “S” in “If S, then T” is of unproven truth value, then you’ve simply committed the “fallacy” fallacy in logic where a term that is posed as true is, in fact, not conclusively proven as true.

When the “S” is the conclusion of a hidden logical syllogism, then the syllogism must be revealed and tested all the way down to the most basic elements of any and all subsequently unpacked premises.

This is why lengthy syllogistic chains run an escalating probability of rejection with each additional link. When one link doesn’t pass muster, the chain is rejected as a whole.

Describing someone who doesn’t immediately accept “S” as true as “childish” is an ad hominem fallacy. Such people are better labelled as “skeptics”.

Fallacies are errors of logic, just fyi.

Go in Peace.