Responding to Mortimer J. (Naturally)

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Ichthus77

It is logically invalid in reasoning to infer a necessary conclusion from premises that are contingent in their modality [Maryann: Is this going from blue example/actuality/action to yellow category/being…because no empty categories, or red possibility/quality/value to yellow necessity/being?] … It is similarly and just as obviously fallacious to draw an ought-conclusion from premises that consist entirely of is-statements ; [Maryann : Is he thinking blue ought as red value or blue ought as blue imperative action aligned with yellow universalized red value?] for the difference in logical type between descriptive and normative [Maryann : Is he talking blue legislative norm without red &/or yellow, or red value norm w/o blue &/or yellow?]

Another way to put the question…

Is he saying both of these are subalternation which commit the existential fallacy?

• going from is to ought (Hume’s guillotine)
• going from is to value/end (Hume’s fork)

see Logic Venn

Also see links in the original post building to:
is △ ought △ value

See:

Existential Fallacy: Can you give better feedback than Copilot?

…or, perhaps this thread could be titled, “Critique Copilot’s Feedback”. Your own feedback (on my work) better impress me if you’re gonna critique Copilot’s feedback. This is a draft of something I’m working on regarding the existential fallacy. I mostly wrote it, but Copilot helped with some research… and being an excellent Socratic sounding board (I would’ve wrastled if they were a bit more embodied)… and they have volunteered insights occasionally. I credit them for it even if not directly q…