The Problem of Existential Import Presents a Counter-Factual Problem for Logical Solutions

Greetings, Tarzan, and all of you as well. I would first like to look at the resolution. "The problem of existential import presents a counter-factual problem for logical solutions." I have 4 problems with the resolution, and therefore negate its truth. 1. Existential import is not a problem. 2. Counter-factuals are not problems. 3. The term "Logical Solutions" does not mean anything. 4. Existential import does not create counter-factuals. They are separate things, neither causing the other to exist. I'll go into more depth about these. ===== 1. Existential import is not a problem My opponent explains quite well what existential import is. It is the phenomena whereby claims such as "Some P is Q" implies that at least one P exists. Existential import happens because "Some P is Q" cannot be true if no P exist. It's not a problem, it's simply a logical implication of the statement. Also, note that existential import only happens when the statement "Some P is Q" is actually asserted to be true. For example, existential import does NOT occur in these cases: "It's not true that Some P is Q." "If some P is Q, then some Q is P." Or any other statement where "Some P is Q" is not asserted as true. ===== 2. Counter-Factuals are not problems. They are simply hypotheticals. There is nothing wrong with them. To show that they are problematic, my opponent claimed that having a false premise makes them unsound. That would be true, if they had premises. Let's look at my opponent's example, and I'll show you why there is not a false premise in it. Recall what a premise is - an assertion, a claim, from which other claims are made. Something is not an premise unless it is being asserted as true. "If Nazi Germany had won WWII, Jews would still be egregiously persecuted." My opponent is trying to say that "Nazi Germany had won WWII" is a premise, but it is not. This counter-factual is not claiming that "Nazi Germany had won WWII." False premise can only possibly apply if there is actually a premise to be false. By trying to misapply the concept of a false premise here, my opponent is only making a fool of himself. Consider: Person 1: "If Nazi Germany had won WWII, Jews would still be egregiously persecuted." Person 2: "But Nazi Germany didn't win WWII, so you're wrong!" Person 1: "I never said they did. That's why I was speaking hypothetically, rather than claiming anything about what actually happened. Any more problems?" Person 2: "No, I guess that makes sense. That they didn't win the war doesn't mean you're wrong unless you were claiming they did. Silly me." ===== 3. The term "Logical Solutions" does not mean anything. Simple as that. My opponent has made up a term and failed to define it. What is my opponent trying to claim? Something nonsensical. "Solutions" to what? Logic doesn't solve anything. Logic is only used in a] Correctly making conclusions from premises, b] Analyzing an argument's premises and conclusions to determine its validity, and perhaps c] Creating premises that would correctly lead to a given conclusion. Since my opponent has not defined it, I will go ahead and express what I feel it must mean. Logical Solutions is the name of a company that makes escrow software. Here is a link to their home page. http://www.logicalsolutionsinc.com... Since my opponent has not brought them up, I have very little to say on this matter. My opponent has given us no reason why any of this would even possibly have anything to do with Logical Solutions. They make escrow software; they probably don't even care about existential import or counter-factuals. ===== 4. Existential import does not create counter-factuals. They are separate things, neither causing the other to exist. Here's part of the resolution: "The Problem of Existential Import Presents a Counter-Factual Problem." This seems to indicate that existential import creates some sort of counter-factual. This is false. Existential import creates an implied premise, which is asserted as true with the original claim. Counter-factuals are combination of hypothetical premises with hypothetical conclusions, neither of which are asserted as necessarily true in reality. I will show several examples of existential import, and show that they do not create counter-factuals. Before that, though, i will explain the impossibility of such a thing. A counter-factual is a single actual claim comprised of both a hypothetical premise and a hypothetical conclusion. The thing in its entirety is asserted as true, but the hypothetical parts are not. Existential import only creates premises of the form "At least one P exists" - which is never the form of a counter-factual. 1. Some circles are larger than other circles. 1a. At least one circle exists. 1a is arguably false, which would lead to 1 being false as well. This would be a false premise, but it would NOT be a counter-factual. 2. Some unicorns prefer to graze in tall grass. 2a. At least one unicorn exists. 2a is probably false, which would lead to 2 being false as well. Again, false premise, but not a counter-factual in any way. 3. Some fairies live in Africa. 3a. At least one fairy exists. Most people would once again say that 3a is false, and 3a being false leads to 3 being false. Same thing every time, and no counter-factuals. But now, let me respond to some of my opponent's claims that are still unanswered. His text will be marked with an "O:", my responses with an "R:" ===== RESPONSES === O: "Thus, we have a problem: to introduce abstract principles like perfect geometrical figures, unicorns, fairies, god, etc... into any logical argument, one would need to first show that they exist" R: Actually, no. To do so does, however, create an implied premise that claims they exist [assuming the use of language like 'some']. One does not have to show that each of his/her premises is true. Such would be an impossible task - to prove one premise as true, one would need to use other premises... which would then need to be proved as true, ad infinitum. Logic does not insist that all premises be true, which is why a false premise is not a logical fallacy. Not that this point is relevant, I just thought I should correct my opponent's false claim. And actually, I've already rebutted every other claim I disagree with in points 1-4, so I suppose I'll give the floor back to my opponent. Good luck, Tarzan.