POLL 2: Is this second argument valid?

[Speakpigeon]

Here is a second argument, with a slightly more complicated logical structure:

For all we know, A may be the state of some B;
C is determined by the state of some B;
Therefore, for all we know, C may be determined by A

Is it valid?

Thank you to vote first before posting any comment.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

for all we know Anything (A) may be the sate of (some B) something
I (C) am determined by the state of something
Therefore I may be the state of something

Form is correct but the argument is meaningless since it, in essence, claims anything may be the state of something which is obvious.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Interesting point but the two instances of "something" in the premises may be understood in your example as referring implicitly to the same thing, but this is not the case in this thread's original argument because, as explained by fast, "some thing" and "something" don't mean the same.

And your conclusion is completely off.

So, I rephrase my argument as follows to make sure people understand the distinction:

For all we know, A may be the state of some instance of the Class B;
C is determined by the state of some instance of the Class B;
Therefore, for all we know, C may be determined by A

Is that valid, do you think?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Doesn't cure the problem at all since one can substitute 'anything' for A and 'something' for Class B and some thing may be anything. So Your argument may not even be valid. In either case it's trivial.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Doesn't cure the problem at all since one can substitute 'anything' for A and 'something' for Class B and some thing may be anything.

No.

So Your argument may not even be valid.

Prove it.

In either case it's trivial.

I'm not trying to make for an interesting argument but for a valid argument. That's the question of this thread, remember?

Further, if it was indeed trivial, most people would have already accepted its validity.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Originally Posted by fromderinside
Doesn't cure the problem at all since one can substitute 'anything' for A and 'something' for Class B and some thing may be anything.

No.

EB

What are you saying "no" to? Is it one can't substitute 'anything' for 'A' or is it that one can't substitute 'something' for 'Class B' or is it one can't substitute 'something' for 'some thing' or you just don't have any cogent response for my posit.

If you want to debate category and hierarchy we will be here all night.

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, there aren't enough votes to elicit a consensus either way.

The two people who voted for "The argument doesn't make sense" are notorious for being unable to articulate their views in a rational way. They limit themselves to very basic assertions they can't support by any meaningful explanation, so that it seems impossible to know what might be their respective justifications of their votes beyond subjective certainty, a situation which has to be a bit ironic of course.

I am certain myself that the argument is valid and I could further justify my assessment, though I won't.

The subject clearly doesn't motivate people here to vote, so I guess they wouldn't care that I should explain and therefore I won't.

Other posters are still welcome to vote if they have a view and to justify here what they voted if they can.
EB

 

[bigfield]

I voted yes, but I changed my mind.

For all we know, A may be the state of some B;
C is determined by the state of some B;
Therefore, for all we know, C may be determined by A

Let's add some categories to turn this into formal logic, instead of simply imitating the forms.
B_C: the B that determine C. Some B are B_C.
B_A: the B that have state A. Any of the following could be true:

• All B are B_A
  
• Some B are B_A
• No B are B_A
• All B_C are B_A
• Some B_C are B_A
• No B_C are B_A

"For all we know, X may be true" is the same as "the truth value of X is unknown".

"Therefore, for all we know, C may be determined by A" might as well say "We don't know if C is determined by A". An argument without a conclusion can't be a valid argument.

 

[Learner]

Sounds better formulated than mine. I said yes but made quite a bit of assumptions to the OP:

A having unique properties that B may have some of (assuming that C requires those same unique properties that originates from A).

C is then determined or relies on A , and if there are no "some of'" in B then there is no C perhaps?

( I suppose this should be a "don't know" but its intriguing to see what results later )

 

[fromderinside]

Oh no. The French Scarf has been shot down?

*^{_{apologies to Charley Brown}}

 

[Speakpigeon]

I voted yes, but I changed my mind.

For all we know, A may be the state of some B;
C is determined by the state of some B;
Therefore, for all we know, C may be determined by A

Let's add some categories to turn this into formal logic, instead of simply imitating the forms.
B_C: the B that determine C. Some B are B_C.
B_A: the B that have state A. Any of the following could be true:

• All B are B_A
  
• Some B are B_A
• No B are B_A
• All B_C are B_A
• Some B_C are B_A
• No B_C are B_A

That should be enough to tell you the argument is valid.

"For all we know, X may be true" is the same as "the truth value of X is unknown".

Sure, and if you have a 99% probability that X is true, you still don't know that X is true. So?

"Therefore, for all we know, C may be determined by A" might as well say "We don't know if C is determined by A". An argument without a conclusion can't be a valid argument.

We might as well say? No. Not the same thing and it's really just plain to see.

And, sorry but there is a clear and definite conclusion and it is for all to see.

I agree you could rephrase the conclusion using the phrase "we don't know" instead of "may be", but not the way you do it. Yours makes for a different argument.

In any case, the question in this thread is as to validity, not soundness. The way you consider the conclusion as you do here suggests you're confusing the question of soundness and validity.

You don't seem to realise that to be able to say "We don't know that not X" is crucial to human beings.

Anyway, thanks for making a constructive contribution. These don't come too often.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is a second argument, with a slightly more complicated logical structure:

For all we know, A may be the state of some B;
C is determined by the state of some B;
Therefore, for all we know, C may be determined by A

Is it valid?

Thank you to vote first before posting any comment.
EB

The argument is perfectly fine.

First line indicates that A is allowed permission to be the state of some B. So A and B are equivalent. If C to B, then C to A.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The argument is perfectly fine.

First line indicates that A is allowed permission to be the state of some B. So A and B are equivalent. If C to B, then C to A.

OK, good, so you could perhaps see how you feel about this other argument here:

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.

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.
EB

Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17421-Could-our-actions-be-decided-by-our-conscious-mind

EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OK, good, so you could perhaps see how you feel about this other argument here:

Thank you to discuss the following argument, its two premises and its validity.



Thank you to restrict yourself to facts and logic.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?17421-Could-our-actions-be-decided-by-our-conscious-mind

EB

I could see how I feel.

 

[Speakpigeon]

OK, good, so you could perhaps see how you feel about this other argument here:

I could see how I feel.

And you can't now. I understand.
EB