(November 17, 2016 at 9:25 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: What do you mean by equivocal ?
They are not the same law. They are two separate laws. NC and EM may follow from ID in some sense but they are all separate.
I just mean the usual dictionary definition. I'm saying the logic is fallacious by virtue of being ambiguous/equivocal.
Sure, if you want to say they're by definition different laws because they're labelled that way, fine. But my point is they both are expressing the same truth in two different ways. That something has to be what it is and that something cannot be what it isn't is two sides of the same coin. The first positive, the second negative. They're in harmony and could easily be relabelled as one law. I don't know what you'd call it. Perhaps the positive and negative form of the law of identity. But it's confusing and unnecessary, so it helps to think of them as separate laws. But remember then you're talking about the concepts instead of the fact that something is what it is/is not what it it not. Which is basically the same truth expressed positively and negatively.
