Logic
Philosophers
I believe that Kant defended the "law of cause and effect" by stating this argument:
(P) If we didn't understand or acknowledge the law of cause and effect, we couldn't have any knowledge.
(Q) We have knowledge.
Therefore: (P) we acknowledge the law of cause and effect.
Isn't this line of reasoning a fallacy? P implies Q, Q, : P
Accepted:January 29, 2008
Accepted:
January 29, 2008