ruby sparks
Contributor
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.
I would not say that your house may be on fire merely because it’s possibly the case your house might be....
May may be a suitable word
Might is a suitable word
Might may be may
???
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.
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
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.It's valid imo, but I'm no expert on this.
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.
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.
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.It's valid imo, but I'm no expert on this.
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.
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 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.
x may be some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, x may be y.
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.
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
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
On further cogitation.......I definitely think it's 100% valid.
He does have a different conception of “may.”???
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
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.
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.
Google is my friend.
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.