Lots of great responses to my Doonesbury puzzler.

Implicitly, **Alex** was arguing, “If you are an independent, then you have a mind of your own.”

From which she concludes, “Conversely, if you are not an independent,” then you do not have a mind of your own.

Alex, I think, is making both a mistake in English usage and a mistake in logic.

Her mistake in usage is that she should have said “inversely” instead of “conversely.” The converse of “If p, then q” is “If q, then p.” But the last frame concerns an inverse: “If not p, then not q.” An interesting empirical study would look to see how often newspapers or academics misuse these adverbs (I’m sure I have).

Her mistake in logic is that neither an inverse nor a converse needs to have the same truth value as the original conditional statement. So even if we accept her original claim (“If you are an independent, then you have a mind of your own”) as true, we need not accept her conclusion that the inverse is also true.

Her two mistakes might be related. In the third frame, she suggests that the definition of independent is having a mind of your own. A converse of a true definition will also be true. (If a figure has four sides, then the figure is a quadrilateral). So by defining the word, maybe Alex is subtly trying to bolster her logic that the converse must be true too. But then she baits and switches to the inverse.

The take-home lesson is that we should be more careful in using “conversely” and “inversely” in our speech and in drawing conclusions from converses and inverses. A weakness in common usage is that no one ever says “contrapositively.” But a contrapositive is the only reframing of a conditional statement that is assured to have the same truth value.

“If p, then q” implies contrapositively “If not q, then not p.”

Playing around with inverses, converses, and contrapositives is one of the more bizarre pastimes of my family. We see a billboard for an adjacent apartment complex that says “If you lived here, you’d be home already” and immediately reframe it: “If you are not home already, you don’t live here.”

On a recent drive from Kansas City to Columbia, Missouri, we had an extended conversation on the logic behind **Beyoncé**‘s song “Single Ladies.” Is it really true that “If you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it”? One way to test your answer is to ask whether the contrapositive is true: “If you shouldn’t have put a ring on it, then you didn’t like it.”

Of course, there are many possible meanings of “liked it,” but the consensus in my family is that neither the statement nor its contrapositive are true (because you might have “liked it” but learned that the other person was married). However, a majority of us think that the inverse of the song’s claim is true: If you did not like it, then you shouldn’t have put a ring on it. And we know that the contrapositive of the statement must also have the same truth value. So we must also believe “If you should’ve put a ring on it, then you liked it.” (The inverse and converse of an original statement are contrapositives of each other!)

Conditional claims strangely are at the center of Beyoncé’s craft. Consider the truth value of her claims in “If I were a boy … .”

Actually, both the converse and the inverse of a definition are true. Because a definition is an “if and only if” statement.

So assuming that she meant to provide a definition in the 3rd frame (ie a person is an independent if (and only if) he has a mind of his own), then the 4th frame contains no logical fallacy. Just misuse of vocabulary.

Being an economist sounds exhausting.

A converse of a true definition does NOT have to be true as well. If it is a SQUARE, it must have 4 sides. If it has 4 sides, it does NOT obviously have to be a square.

Common usage will win in the long run. If people use ‘conversely’ to mean ‘on the other hand’ often enough, then that is what it will come to mean. Languages have their own life independent of the rules of grammar.

Note that from a logic standpoint it doesn’t actually matter whether you’re talking about the inverse or the converse, since the inverse is the contrapositive of the converse.

I don’t think that he ever argued that the converse of a true definition has to be true as well. He DID argue that the CONTRAPOSITIVE must be true. If it DOES NOT have 4 sides, it is not a SQUARE. Now that’s what I call true.

the phrase “if I were a boy” is not a material conditional. It could be either a subjunctive or counterfactual conditional.

The truth of those is much harder to assess than the straightforward material conditional.

Good thing us logicians are still around, eh?

@nsk #3: Having four sides is *part* of the definition of a square, but not the whole definition. The converse of the whole definition is indeed valid – by definition.

My favorite logical rephrasing is the somewhat less encouraging “What doesn’t make you stronger kills you.”