Unless this is a joke, I confess to being confused here. Given A > B, it does not necessarily follow that -B > -A.
You can make a Bayesian argument here based on confirmation of expected evidence, expressed as probabilities, but this does not work as a classical syllogism.
Unless this is a joke, I confess to being confused here. Given A > B, it does not necessarily follow that -B > -A.
You can make a Bayesian argument here based on confirmation of expected evidence, expressed as probabilities, but this does not work as a classical syllogism.
Actually …