Why is “false implies false” logically considered to be true?


Why is “false implies false” logically considered to be true?

In: 6

Think of it that way, if your assumptions are false, your conclusion can be false as well. That’s the gist of it.

Is this Quine’s Reparsing Thesis?

It’s easier to think of it as an example.
Take the statement: “If I clap my hands, I will hear a sound.”
This is “clap hands” implies “hear a sound”
Say you did not clap you hands and you also did not hear a sound.
What part of that would make the original statement a lie?

You’re looking at this through a boolean lens. This is Aristotlean logic.

F -> F : T should better be read as:

“A conclusion does not follow that is only supported by false claims”

And rather more specifically, it’s about the refutation. One doesn’t need any additional evidence to refute such a conclusion, just to show that the assumption is false. That would be a correct refutation; it’s similar to the notion that one making extraordinary claims must be the one to back them up with credible evidence.