Lexicon of Arguments

 

Meggle I 303
Presupposition/RyninVsStrawson: ...then it follows, paradoxically, that all of the prerequisite allegations were true: it should apply: S > S and S ~> S", but it is also true that S v ~ S. It follows that: S" - in other words,. (~ S"> ~ (S v ~ S))> S.
HungerlandVsStrawson: Strawson's presupposition is not a context-implication - it implies in addition that I believe to have children.
VsStrawson: normal communication does not go like that.
>Context, cf. >Implicature.
Meggle I 300
Def Presupposition/Strawson: Def "S presupposes S': The truth of S' is a necessary condition of the truth or falsity of the assertion that S.
E.g. "All my children sleep tight" presupposes "I have children".
Meggle I 303
David RyninVsStrawson: paradoxically from this interpretation follows that all presupposed assertions would be true: S > S' and ~ S > S'; but also this applies: S v ~ S. From this follows: S'.
In other words: (~S' (S v ~ S))> S is analytically true in a system of bivalent propositional logic.
>Bivalence, >Propositional logic.