In terms of a logical implication P -> Q, certainly not.
Rhetorically, it does have that interpretation.
When some unconditional proposition is presented together with some red herring conditions, a less informed reader may take the interpretation that the conditions are relevant; i.e. that it is falsified when the stated conditions do not hold. Because, why would the presenting expert include irrelevant conditions?
"I've noticed that Smith doesn't beat his wife in public."
That doesn't logically imply Smith beats his wife, but he does have to be beating his wife for the "in public" condition to be relevant. To assume that the condition is relevant is to assume that Smith does beat his wife. If the condition is not relevant, why is it there?
I'd like to be able to assume that all conditions given in serious writing about STEM subjects are relevant, so I don't have to waste my time suspecting they are not.
Rhetorically, it does have that interpretation.
When some unconditional proposition is presented together with some red herring conditions, a less informed reader may take the interpretation that the conditions are relevant; i.e. that it is falsified when the stated conditions do not hold. Because, why would the presenting expert include irrelevant conditions?
"I've noticed that Smith doesn't beat his wife in public."
That doesn't logically imply Smith beats his wife, but he does have to be beating his wife for the "in public" condition to be relevant. To assume that the condition is relevant is to assume that Smith does beat his wife. If the condition is not relevant, why is it there?
I'd like to be able to assume that all conditions given in serious writing about STEM subjects are relevant, so I don't have to waste my time suspecting they are not.