fast
Contributor
I need us to be on the same page. I came up with the example, and my usage of “may” isn’t a stipulative usage but rather a lexical usage, but let’s not argue that point; rather, let us go down both roads and consider the implications of both.
When I say “might”, I mean logically possible. The truth of what might be the case about anything is already known. For instance, the statement “Bomb might live in a yellow submarine is true.” We know it’s true by virtue of the mere fact it’s logically possible. The truth is independent of any argument. Place it in the conclusion of a deductive argument and it will be true no matter the validity of the argument. Likewise, it’s true even if within a non-deductive argument. No argument needed, as it’s necessarily true by definition.
“May” on the other hand is substantively different. Sure, if something may be case, then something is possibly the case, but what I mean when I say something may be the case necessarily includes more than the mere fact that something is logically possible. Take for instance the statement “Bomb may live in a yellow submarine.” I would never say that UNLESS I had information that gave me good reason to think it IS the case that Bomb lives in a yellow submarine.
I don’t casually say something may or may not be true like I would say something might or might not be true. I need nothing except the lack of a contradiction to say “Bomb might live in a yellow submarine.” I do need something more to either say “Bomb may live in a submarine” or “Bomb does live in a yellow submarine.”
Recall the conclusion: “X may be Y.” If it were ONLY the case that X might be Y, I would find the conclusion false. Remember, I need good reason to think “may,”; otherwise, I employ “might.” I think the conclusion is true, and it’s the facts not the validity of a guarantee, that boosts my confidence. Let’s not forget what MAY be the case: the lost boy MAY be a member of the Boy Scouts. Also, Bobby IS a member of the Boy Scouts.
Now, it’s the facts, not the validity, that strengthens my confidence in the conclusion. As to form, I doubt the argument is a valid deductive argument. What’s intriguing is that I’ve used the information in the premises to accept the usage of “may” in the conclusion. It’s almost as if there’s a nondeductive argument masquerading as a deductive one.
When I say “might”, I mean logically possible. The truth of what might be the case about anything is already known. For instance, the statement “Bomb might live in a yellow submarine is true.” We know it’s true by virtue of the mere fact it’s logically possible. The truth is independent of any argument. Place it in the conclusion of a deductive argument and it will be true no matter the validity of the argument. Likewise, it’s true even if within a non-deductive argument. No argument needed, as it’s necessarily true by definition.
“May” on the other hand is substantively different. Sure, if something may be case, then something is possibly the case, but what I mean when I say something may be the case necessarily includes more than the mere fact that something is logically possible. Take for instance the statement “Bomb may live in a yellow submarine.” I would never say that UNLESS I had information that gave me good reason to think it IS the case that Bomb lives in a yellow submarine.
I don’t casually say something may or may not be true like I would say something might or might not be true. I need nothing except the lack of a contradiction to say “Bomb might live in a yellow submarine.” I do need something more to either say “Bomb may live in a submarine” or “Bomb does live in a yellow submarine.”
Recall the conclusion: “X may be Y.” If it were ONLY the case that X might be Y, I would find the conclusion false. Remember, I need good reason to think “may,”; otherwise, I employ “might.” I think the conclusion is true, and it’s the facts not the validity of a guarantee, that boosts my confidence. Let’s not forget what MAY be the case: the lost boy MAY be a member of the Boy Scouts. Also, Bobby IS a member of the Boy Scouts.
Now, it’s the facts, not the validity, that strengthens my confidence in the conclusion. As to form, I doubt the argument is a valid deductive argument. What’s intriguing is that I’ve used the information in the premises to accept the usage of “may” in the conclusion. It’s almost as if there’s a nondeductive argument masquerading as a deductive one.