The problem is "If P"
I've heard the "etymological fallacy " gag already. No sh*t, man. The meanings of words change.
That's obvious. I'm trying to point out the slippage of living language. P is a mummy. P is a pseudo-number. Whereas a real proposition occurs in history, in a living human situation. It's context bound. The etymology is to demonstrate how concepts are born as metaphors, and to emphasize that they cannot be treated mathematically.
Use your imagination. Go back to the creation of the first abstract words. How were such words invented? How did they have a social meaning? How was the social invention of abstraction meaning possible? One had to use a concrete word in a new way. Just as the word style comes from stylus. How is it that formal logic can be applied with such confidence to metaphorical utterance?
And how is your belief in or fondness of logic itself justified
by logic? I'm sure you don't consider humanity in general to be logical. But perhaps you and Spock and logical elite are taking the narrow straight path to righteousness and truth. To me this quite mythological. Persuasion and Rhetoric (with I use with an irony your formal logic is deaf to) appeal to a holistic more "realistic" human being.
We're both caught up in our imperfect mental models. I'm just insisting that my own is more sophisticated. And this is what you also are doing less explicitly.
But I don't feel the need to negate formal logic. Within its limits it's beautiful. Whereas I do not feel that you even yet comprehend my point. You keep coughing up this phrase "etymological" fallacy, as if I think that a words roots are its true meaning. The meaning of a word is context bound, and the more abstract the word, the less definite its meaning.
This is why "If P" is the crux of our argument. What is it that determines whether P is true or false? It's the bridge between "objective" and "subjective" reality that I am concerned with. I say that "persuasion" and "rhetoric" are more accurate terms than "proof" and "logic." Ask O.J.