/lit/ - Literature

>>14672214
That's not me.

>>14672218
>>14672234
We've been over this above. He uses this as the grounds for his thinking for other posts, i.e. a method. He moves from assuming something is true, to failure of reality or failure of imagination. Then concluding the assumption must be false. Pretty standard looking "proof" that looks more like contradiction than the contrapositive. But like I said above, it's still a shit proof. He wants a normative recipe for "integrity checks" on beliefs that he thinks are "literally failsafe," but there's no recipe there for finding the equivalent of a contradiction (absurdity, logical impossibility, etc). He just relies on failures of reality and imagination, which aren't the equivalent of absurdities (something undeniably false) or logical impossibilities. The latter are generated by the structure of the proof; while the former he's obtaining from something that isn't failsafe (his inquiry into reality, with a method of inquiry that he already seems to be confused on).

As I said above, he's mystified a bunch of people here into a bunch of logical sophistry (as he did several times arguing with Kantbot, e.g. the whole double negation thing). You say I'm the one namedropping terms, but it looks like that is what Moldbug is doing (and you don't pick up on, because you're ignorant). You keep calling me retarded, but if you think laying bare his confusions and methods is "nitpicking", then I'm not the retard here, you are. You sound like a whiny brat that is defending your dad's honor on the schoolground. Either argue the point or fuck off back to /pol/.

PS

If you want an actual nitpick in the Moldbug style of using obscure historical people and events. Try googling the following as a counter to his "CIA and 9/11": Richard Blee, Tom Wilshire, Mark Rossini, Michael Springmann, Operation Cyclone. While it might not support the "CIA did 9/11" hypothesis, it certainly btfo any mono-causal "CIA had no causal role in 9/11 and al Qaeda" that he seems to be implying (which again shows how garbage his inquiry methods are).

>>14672259
There's no conditional premise (and no conditional conclusion), he starts with a proposition. His proof tries to move from an assumption to what he considers an absurdity or logical impossibility. He then concludes the assumption must be false. So his proof is:

(1) P -> Failure of imagination or reality.
Therefore,
(2) P is false.

Again, this isn't a proof by contrapositive.