> History is full of true ideas getting pounded flat.
That is not the logical complement of what I said. I only said that true ideas tend to spread quickly, which is obviously true. True ideas which were pounded flat are not counterexamples, because I'm talking about tendency.
It is a counterexample, because clearly untrue ideas also spread quickly, and history shows that untrue ideas stick far more easily - pursuing reason requires a lot of effort.
That's still not a logical complement of what I said. I didn't say that only true ideas tend to spread quickly, or that they tend to spread more quickly than untrue ideas.
Really? The whole point of saying the statement at all is that 'true' ideas have this feature than other ideas don't have as much of. Now you say that non-true ideas spread just as quickly, the statement is utterly pointless.
If the 'trueness' of the idea is irrelevant to how quickly it spreads, as you've just said here, then your statement becomes "Ideas tend to spread quickly, regardless of their truth", which is pointless given the context.
Read closely. All I said is that the particular idea in question spread quickly because it is true and because true ideas tend to spread quickly. It is completely irrelevant if non-true ideas also spread quickly. What I said still holds.
That is not the logical complement of what I said. I only said that true ideas tend to spread quickly, which is obviously true. True ideas which were pounded flat are not counterexamples, because I'm talking about tendency.