POLL 4 on a very simple argument specially designed for DBT and Koyaanisqatsi

[ruby sparks]

I would not say that your house may be on fire merely because it’s possibly the case your house might be....

Why would you not say that though?


Setting aside that you switched to 'might' in the second part.

 

[ruby sparks]

May may be a suitable word
Might is a suitable word
Might may be may

???

 

[ruby sparks]

I think the OP argument is valid because the two premises (I hope that's the correct name for both of the first two lines) guarantee the conclusion.

Does it tell us much?

It does tell us that there is uncertainty. That we don't know (something). That is arguably information. Also, perhaps that we can't even assign it (what is possible but which we don't know) a probability (at least that we don't, in the argument). That is also arguably information. So it seems a lot like a possibility only (a might or a may, I don't see any meaningful difference except for linguists to argue over). So it's a bit like a 'U' (for 'unknown') or a 'don't know' or a 'P' or 'Po' for 'possible' (ie not impossible). See also: Edward de Bono. Being not impossible is arguably also information. Is that 3 pieces or types of information? If so, that's arguably quite a lot for something so uncertain.

This situation could arise because of insufficient information in a system. In theory a system could represent this, in addition to yes or no, or on or off, as a third state or status (let's go for 'U' in addition to 'Y' and 'N'). It might even be useful, if a complex but time-restrained system needs to make a decision without having all the information.

And I don't see a good reason to necessarily exclude this from being a type of logic.

That's my tuppenceworth. I did google some of the above. I confess to that. Google is my friend. Some of it is my own brainfarts though.

 

[ruby sparks]

May may be a suitable word
Might is a suitable word
Might may be may

???

That was not meant to be a serious example. I was trying to be witty.

 

[fast]

I would not say that your house may be on fire merely because it’s possibly the case your house might be....

Why would you not say that though?


Setting aside that you switched to 'might' in the second part.

Not too many philosophers have adopted the subtlety of usage between “might” and “may,” and there are some rinky-dink dictionaries that fail to expound on the fine distinctions sometimes eluded to by those with an analytical bent.

The word, “might” is not limited in use to the past tense of “may.” It is also used to express a bare possibility. Take for instance something that is physically impossible yet not a contradiction. Such a thing is still technically possible since it’s logically possible; that would surely be a bare possibility. My house might be a flying saucer in desguise, but we have no GOOD REASON to think IT MAY BE a flying saucer in desguise.

Now, does this mean that it MAY BE a flying saucer in desguise despite the lack of GOOD REASON? If you think (and if it’s true) that there is no meaningful distinction between “it may be the case” and “it’s possibly the case,” then your use of “may” would be like Koyaanisqatsi’s usage; I, on the other hand, do not equate the two in perfect uniformity.

To me, anything that may be the case might be the case, but I do not hold that anything that might be the case may be the case. For instance, I think it takes good reason to elevate a claim of might to a claim of may. If we got into the nitty gritty of things, I would say that the pros need to outweigh the cons for thinking something MAY be true. If I know that something is not a contradiction, I automatically know that something MIGHT be the case, but for me to take a leap and say that something MAY be the case, I’m going to need information and have a GOOD REASON.

 

[DBT]

As to how this dispute began.

The incorrect conclusion:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person


The correct conclusion:

Premise 1 - Somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

 

[Wiploc]

This is a poll on a very simple logical argument.

You can all vote, not just Koyaanisqatsi and DBT.

Here is the argument:

x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.

Is this argument valid?

Thank you to vote before posting any comment.
EB

1. My right hand may be some part of me.
2. My left hand is some part of me.
3. Therefore, my right hand may be my left hand.

No, that doesn't work.

 

[fast]

It's valid imo, but I'm no expert on this.

Change the question. Ask yourself if the argument is even in fact a deductive argument. It is an argument, but is it deductive or non-deductive? I’m specifically avoiding the use of “inductive.” They are not identical.

Also, don’t confuse “invalid” with “not valid.” Dictionaries notoriously confuse people on this issue.

Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid, and all invalid arguments are arguments that are not valid.

Non-deductive arguments are neither valid nor invalid. They are not valid, but they are not invalid. Tricky, so keep your eye on it.

In plain speak, deductive arguments are valid or invalid while non-deductive arguments are weak or strong. If you find an argument and it’s a good argument, that doesn’t make it valid. After all, it might be a strong non-deductive argument in which the terms “valid” and “invalid” do not apply.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would not say that your house may be on fire merely because it’s possibly the case your house might be....

Why would you not say that though?


Setting aside that you switched to 'might' in the second part.

Not too many philosophers have adopted the subtlety of usage between “might” and “may,” and there are some rinky-dink dictionaries that fail to expound on the fine distinctions sometimes eluded to by those with an analytical bent.

The word, “might” is not limited in use to the past tense of “may.” It is also used to express a bare possibility. Take for instance something that is physically impossible yet not a contradiction. Such a thing is still technically possible since it’s logically possible; that would surely be a bare possibility. My house might be a flying saucer in desguise, but we have no GOOD REASON to think IT MAY BE a flying saucer in desguise.

Now, does this mean that it MAY BE a flying saucer in desguise despite the lack of GOOD REASON? If you think (and if it’s true) that there is no meaningful distinction between “it may be the case” and “it’s possibly the case,” then your use of “may” would be like Koyaanisqatsi’s usage; I, on the other hand, do not equate the two in perfect uniformity.

To me, anything that may be the case might be the case, but I do not hold that anything that might be the case may be the case. For instance, I think it takes good reason to elevate a claim of might to a claim of may. If we got into the nitty gritty of things, I would say that the pros need to outweigh the cons for thinking something MAY be true. If I know that something is not a contradiction, I automatically know that something MIGHT be the case, but for me to take a leap and say that something MAY be the case, I’m going to need information and have a GOOD REASON.

You may be right, and you may be wrong.

You might be right and you might be wrong.

I'm not seeing a difference, except a difference in what you or I might associate with either word, which does not appear to be set in stone, but is a moveable feast, a matter of opinion and/or usage, where 'most popular' wins. In other words, we'd have to agree on definitions before being able to start talking about it.

This is a poll on a very simple logical argument.

You can all vote, not just Koyaanisqatsi and DBT.

Here is the argument:

x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.

Is this argument valid?

Thank you to vote before posting any comment.
EB

1. My right hand may be some part of me.
2. My left hand is some part of me.
3. Therefore, my right hand may be my left hand.

No, that doesn't work.

Holy cow. I may have been wrong. As I understand it, if 1 and 2 don't guarantee 3, it's logically invalid (or not valid, I confess I'm not au fait with the difference fast pointed out).

 

[ruby sparks]

It's valid imo, but I'm no expert on this.

Change the question. Ask yourself if the argument is even in fact a deductive argument. It is an argument, but is it deductive or non-deductive? I’m specifically avoiding the use of “inductive.” They are not identical.

Also, don’t confuse “invalid” with “not valid.” Dictionaries notoriously confuse people on this issue.

Deductive arguments are either valid or invalid, and all invalid arguments are arguments that are not valid.

Non-deductive arguments are neither valid nor invalid. They are not valid, but they are not invalid. Tricky, so keep your eye on it.

In plain speak, deductive arguments are valid or invalid while non-deductive arguments are weak or strong. If you find an argument and it’s a good argument, that doesn’t make it valid. After all, it might be a strong non-deductive argument in which the terms “valid” and “invalid” do not apply.

I think it wants to be deductive. And I thought it was and was valid. Now I'm not sure.

 

[bigfield]

This is a poll on a very simple logical argument.

You can all vote, not just Koyaanisqatsi and DBT.

Here is the argument:

x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.

Is this argument valid?

Thank you to vote before posting any comment.
EB

1. My right hand may be some part of me.
2. My left hand is some part of me.
3. Therefore, my right hand may be my left hand.

No, that doesn't work.

Holy cow. I may have been wrong.

Ditto.

 

[ruby sparks]

Double post.

 

[ruby sparks]

As to how this dispute began.

The incorrect conclusion:

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore, for all we know, what somebody does may be determined by the conscious mind of this person


The correct conclusion:

Premise 1 - Somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

I'm fumbling in the dark here, but...

Neither of those look exactly like the form of OP argument.

x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.

In 'yours' 'x' in line 1 is 'somebody's conscious mind' and 'B' is 'the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain' and you don't say 'x' is some part of 'B'.
In line 2, 'Y' is 'What somebody does' and 'B' has changed to 'is determined by 'B' not 'is some part of B'.

The terms do not seem to have been preserved throughout?

So maybe the OP argument is not the same as the 'original' one(s)?

I'm not sure if the issue for which a resolution is being sought is amenable to logic, or it might be, but I'm not sure either of 'yours' can be shown to be either correct or incorrect. But maybe I'm just not very good at logic. This is de facto the case, actually.

 

[ruby sparks]

DBT, to put 'your' correct argument into the OP form would seem to read:

Let x = someone's conscious mind
Let B = the state of the neurons
Let Y = what somebody does

Then yours would be:

Someone's conscious mind may be the state of the neurons
What somebody does is the state of the neurons
Therefore, what somebody does may be someone's conscious mind.

Which makes no sense.

Or, if we put in the word 'determined' we get

Let x = someone's conscious mind
Let B = determined by the state of the neurons
Let Y = what somebody does

Then yours would be:

Someone's conscious mind may be determined by the state of the neurons
What somebody does is determined by the state of the neurons
Therefore, what somebody does may be someone's conscious mind.

Which does not necessarily follow, in much the way the OP argument conclusion does not follow, as per Wiploc.

And we'd have to accept that What somebody does is determined by the state of the neurons, which we can't necessarily, since (I think) it would be assuming a key conclusion that you might agree with and may even be the core of the dispute.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The only thing that matters in regard to testing is whether or not you're claiming that X is Y.

OK, so it doesn't matter if I say that you may be a Nazi sympathiser?

In regard to invoking a syllogism as a means to test it? No, we do not need a formal syllogism to answer the question of whether I may or may not be a Nazi sympathiser.

You can't even get yourself to answer to straightforward and legitimate question.

Assertion, in logic, are statements that can be said to be true or false. You claimed that may-statement are neither true nor false, so, in affect, you claimed they are not assertions. So, you should take anyone stating you may be a Nazi sympathiser as not asserting you may be a Nazi sympathiser. Suppose you're in a public meeting and the debate gets angry and some dude merely state, loud and clear, that you may be a Nazi sympathiser. So, you go, fine, we all know may-statements aren't assertions, it's neither true nor false and everybody in this room understands that (assuming I'm not in the room).

You haven't replied to that. You've sidestepped my point.

And so it's just one more example of how you've been so very consistent in being irrelevant to whatever I say. You plod along regardless of what people say, UM-style.

You're just a waste of time.
EB

 

[Testy Calibrate]

This is a poll on a very simple logical argument.

You can all vote, not just Koyaanisqatsi and DBT.

Here is the argument:

x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.

Is this argument valid?

Thank you to vote before posting any comment.
EB

I am probably not going to read this thread since it looks like an argument from elsewhere, but I will say that it isn't an 'argument' to say that x may be y. It's a logically valid statement that makes the inventor of the axiom of choice look like he was dealing with someone with a similar discussion tooic.

- - - Updated - - -

In regard to invoking a syllogism as a means to test it? No, we do not need a formal syllogism to answer the question of whether I may or may not be a Nazi sympathiser.

You can't even get yourself to answer to straightforward and legitimate question.

Assertion, in logic, are statements that can be said to be true or false. You claimed that may-statement are neither true nor false, so, in affect, you claimed they are not assertions. So, you should take anyone stating you may be a Nazi sympathiser as not asserting you may be a Nazi sympathiser. Suppose you're in a public meeting and the debate gets angry and some dude merely state, loud and clear, that you may be a Nazi sympathiser. So, you go, fine, we all know may-statements aren't assertions, it's neither true nor false and everybody in this room understands that (assuming I'm not in the room).

You haven't replied to that. You've sidestepped my point.

And so it's just one more example of how you've been so very consistent in being irrelevant to whatever I say. You plod along regardless of what people say, UM-style.

You're just a waste of time.
EB

This apparently got weird. My interest is almost piqued.

 

[Speakpigeon]

On further cogitation.......I definitely think it's 100% valid.

Don't play with my old ticker.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

???

Contra?! What's that?!

Do you mean negation?! Well, in logic, what else? Aw, that's terrible. "May be p" and "may be not p" are not the negation of each other.

So, apparently, you just don't understand what the modal "may" means.
EB

He does have a different conception of “may.”

I would not say that your house may be on fire merely because it’s possibly the case your house might be, but he would.

Yeah, might be.

Don't think so, though. He actually said, in this thread, that "A may not be B" is the negation of "A may be B".

First, this is of course not true since the two expressions are not mutually exclusive.

But second, his claim is in contradiction with his other claim that "A may be B" doesn't have a truth value.

Still, some old folks use "might" where "may" is normally called for. So maybe he's a different kind of old thing who uses "may" where "might" is called for.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think the OP argument is valid because the two premises (I hope that's the correct name for both of the first two lines) guarantee the conclusion.

Does it tell us much?

It does tell us that there is uncertainty. That we don't know (something). That is arguably information. Also, perhaps that we can't even assign it (what is possible but which we don't know) a probability (at least that we don't, in the argument). That is also arguably information. So it seems a lot like a possibility only (a might or a may, I don't see any meaningful difference except for linguists to argue over). So it's a bit like a 'U' (for 'unknown') or a 'don't know' or a 'P' or 'Po' for 'possible' (ie not impossible). See also: Edward de Bono. Being not impossible is arguably also information. Is that 3 pieces or types of information? If so, that's arguably quite a lot for something so uncertain.

Agreed with that except "may" and might". "May" only signal possibility (as absence of knowledge), whereas "might" further signals (low) probability. Although, locally, people may well use both differently.

This situation could arise because of insufficient information in a system. In theory a system could represent this, in addition to yes or no, or on or off, as a third state or status (let's go for 'U' in addition to 'Y' and 'N'). It might even be useful, if a complex but time-restrained system needs to make a decision without having all the information.

It's not "unknown" in addition to "yes" and "no", it's two epistemological states, known and unknown, and if known, then two further logical states, true or false. So, in effect, it's four possible ontological states, known true, known false, unknown true and unknown false, but only three epistemological values, known true, known false, unknown, and these three values are mutually exclusive. And for each proposition, each of these values is either true or false.

And I don't see a good reason to necessarily exclude this from being a type of logic.

And there's no choice. We do it anyway.

Google is my friend.

Keep in mind you may have imaginary friends.

And you might want to deduce something from that...
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I would not say that your house may be on fire merely because it’s possibly the case your house might be....

Why would you not say that though?


Setting aside that you switched to 'might' in the second part.

Not too many philosophers have adopted the subtlety of usage between “might” and “may,” and there are some rinky-dink dictionaries that fail to expound on the fine distinctions sometimes eluded to by those with an analytical bent.

The word, “might” is not limited in use to the past tense of “may.” It is also used to express a bare possibility. Take for instance something that is physically impossible yet not a contradiction. Such a thing is still technically possible since it’s logically possible; that would surely be a bare possibility. My house might be a flying saucer in desguise, but we have no GOOD REASON to think IT MAY BE a flying saucer in desguise.

Now, does this mean that it MAY BE a flying saucer in desguise despite the lack of GOOD REASON? If you think (and if it’s true) that there is no meaningful distinction between “it may be the case” and “it’s possibly the case,” then your use of “may” would be like Koyaanisqatsi’s usage; I, on the other hand, do not equate the two in perfect uniformity.
o me, anything that may be the case might be the case, but I do not hold that anything that might be the case may be the case. For instance, I think it takes good reason to elevate a claim of might to a claim of may. If we got into the nitty gritty of things, I would say that the pros need to outweigh the cons for thinking something MAY be true. If I know that something is not a contradiction, I automatically know that something MIGHT be the case, but for me to take a leap and say that something MAY be the case, I’m going to need information and have a GOOD REASON.

We're going to have to disagree here... Knowledge again.

First, you can't logically exclude your house is a flying saucer in disguise since, by definition of "disguise", you couldn't tell a flying saucer in disguise from a regular-guy house.

Second, I'm the one using "may" for logically possible given what we know.

And I many times explained I used "may" in my argument as short for "not known to be false", which I take to be the default usage, anyway, as in "It may rain tomorrow".

Koyaanisqatsi’s usage is anybody's guess. Once you claim that "A may be B" doesn't have a truth value, all bets are off. He also asserted "not known false" equates "known true". All bets are off.

Good reasons for using "may" is not a matter of logic but a matter of pragmatics. You won't usually say in his face to a big bloke with tattoos he may be a moron. But if your life depended on it, you would.

And if you don't know where your keys are at all, then you have to admit that, and that it is entirely logical to say, they may be in the kitchen AND that they may not be in the kitchen. Then, pragmatics will decide which you go for, essentially by taking into account what you believe. For example, you've already searched the kitchen, so, while the keys still might be in the kitchen, and therefore logically may be in the kitchen, you're not going to say that but instead go for "they may be in the bedroom". That's no longer logic, though, but probability given you searched the kitchen.
EB