290-3 Truth, Logical Consequence, and Logical Constants.
The experts are independent and should vote on all of the elements of a causal argument: antecedent, logical connection, and consequent.
Thus here, in the Prolegomena, Kant describes what he calls Hume's "challenge" to reason concerning "the connection of cause and effect" in precisely the same terms that he had himself earlier used, in the 1763 essay on Negative Magnitudes and the 1766 Dreams of a Spirit-Seer, to pose a fundamental problem about the relation of a real ground (as opposed to a logical ground) to its consequent.
If it is asserted that a society functions adequately only if necessary needs are satisfied, and if it is further asserted that ritual does satisfy that need, then scholars cannot conclude that, therefore, ritual is present in that society without committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Kant begins with the purely logical relation between ground and consequent.
Other irrelevant conditionals are those that turn out to be logical truths just because the consequent is necessary (verum ex quolibet), such as A → B ∨ ¬B, or A → (B → B).
The antecedent is a logical conjunction of descriptors and the consequent is the decision class or union of decision classes suggested by the rule.
To turn these properties into causal role functions, the ENCODE authors engage in a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".
It is logical space, deficient in actuality apart from the consequent nature says Whitehead.
The IF conditions are built using predicates, and a logical connection is used to connect antecedent and consequent parts, whereas the THEN statement gives a degree of membership function that befits the fuzzy variables involved.
