@pygosceles @pygosceles -- you may have "taught" this, but your teaching is in error. P → Q is just derived from deductive logic. Test for Q, assume classical logic to be true, and if Q is not found, then P is refuted. Not all empiricists realize that logic itself is also uncertain and needs testing. But classical logic works well enough in enough circumstances that the presumption that it is valid is generally a good starting point for further reasoning and testing.
That empiricism itself does not follow classical logic is an interesting tangent, but it does not get you out of this error. Empiricism uses four stat logic -- supported, disconfirmed, currently unclear status, and poorly articulated question that is inherently unevaluable. While this is not classical logic, it still involves using classical logic to derive P → Q, then testing Q.
Meanwhile, your assertion of "truth" as an absolute, is explicitly an assertion of classical logic, and is self-contradictory to your claim to be testing the logic behind the derivation of P → Q.
You're just denying the reality of objective truth to say I'm wrong. That doesn't work, you must advance and objective standard if you wished to try to contradict another objective standard.
@Dcleve But by very nature, there is only one objective standard of truth, and that is truth itself.
@pygosceles -- You can of course make any sort of claim you want. But what is the justification behind your claim there is only one "truth"? That is not what logicians think: cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/… If there are an infinity of logics, there are an infinity of logic metrics, and those may not even include "truth" as a coherent concept in multiple logics.
Discussion on answer by pygosceles: I…
Discussion on answer by pygosceles: I…