Tuesday, June 5, 2012

[PHI 3000] One's modus ponens is another's modus tollens

Some (e.g., David Chalmers) argue roughly as follows:
  1. If physicalism is true, then zombies are impossible.
  2. Zombies are possible.
  3. Therefore, physicalism is not true.

In reply, others (e.g., Daniel Dennett) argue roughly as follows:
  1. If zombies are impossible, then physicalism is true.
  2. Zombies are impossible.
  3. Therefore, physicalism is true.

Both arguments are valid. Which do you find more convincing?

1 comment:

This is an academic blog about critical thinking, logic, and philosophy. So please refrain from making insulting, disparaging, and otherwise inappropriate comments. Also, if I publish your comment, that does not mean I agree with it. Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.