A year ago I presented a paper on using s(CASP) for detecting drafting errors in legislation. Today I was able to write the same code and run the same query from that paper, inside Blawx. Tomorrow, I will add it as an example to the live demo.

This is really cool to see. It’s likely really simplified, but is there some way that basic logical fallacies could be input and then demonstrated contextually with scenarios like the one above? Something like “the gamblers fallacy” could result in something like “there is no evidence that playing repeatedly will increase the odds of winning”.

Thanks! Gambler's fallacy is that past random results change the likelihood of future random events. It's not particularly better suited for demonstrating those kinds of fallacies than any other programming tool, and probably worse for things that involve a large number of simulations.

Ah interesting. Thanks for the details 😃