1) if B then A 2) if not B, then not A. Which implies if A then B.
1) if B then A
2) if not B, then not A. Which implies if A then B.
… but then he went on to say “How can an equivalent argument have explanatory power?” which seemed, to me, to assume that “if B then A” and “if A then B” are equivalent (which they are not).
I read that statement as implying that argument A is equivalent to argument B. (Not (1) and (2), which are statements about arguments A and B)
And, if A implies B and B implies A, then it seems to me that A and B have to be equivalent to each other.
… but then he went on to say “How can an equivalent argument have explanatory power?” which seemed, to me, to assume that “if B then A” and “if A then B” are equivalent (which they are not).
I read that statement as implying that argument A is equivalent to argument B. (Not (1) and (2), which are statements about arguments A and B)
And, if A implies B and B implies A, then it seems to me that A and B have to be equivalent to each other.