Critical analysis reveals three major formalization errors in a prior reconstruction of the Haoliang debate, highlighting the need for valid logical connectives and substitution rules.
Hou and Wang use modern logic as a research tool to attempt to conduct a strict logical analysis of the Haoliang debate. However, in their analysis, there are three serious logical errors. The first is the misuse of connectives for conjunctions and implications; the second is the incorrect formalization of OMS (one basic principle of the other‐mind skepticism); the third is the incorrect use of the rules of substitution. In this paper, these three errors are analyzed, explained, and corrected in detail.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xudong Hao (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: