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

[Speakpigeon]

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.

OK, that's a rationale.

How confident are you that your reasoning is exclusively based on the form of the argument?

How to:

1. Assume the premises true.
2. Only assume the premises true.
3. Are you sure you exclusively assume the premises?

So?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Let's see who rises to the challenge.

Hey, the two doubters, what about it?
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That is inherent to the use of "may." We don't know and the premise does not affirm either condition. Thus, it is not possible to say that P1 is "true" or "false."

So, when we say that it may rain tomorrow, it is neither true nor false that it may rain tomorrow?!

What are you trying to test? The verb or the subject? When we say, "It may rain tomorrow" we are questioning whether or not it will rain tomorrow, not whether or not we live in a universe where possibility exists. We already know that possibility exists.

And no, not the possibility of rain as you are not testing that; you are doing nothing more than affirming the word "may" and NOT "may rain." If the focus of your Premise is on the verb and not the subject of the Premise, then all you're doing is affirming "may" as a conditional, but we don't need to derive that. It is already the case.

So if all you are doing is playing logic 101 games that rely on the technicality of what "true" means in regard to premises, then you can't turn around and equivocate by saying, "No, I wanted to test whether or not it's actually going to rain tomorrow." The possibility of literally anything (that is logically possible) is already established.

Sorry, but if we don't know that it's not going to rain tomorrow then we claim it's true that it may rain tomorrow. And if we could know it's not going to rain tomorrow, then we would say that it is not true that it may rain tomorrow.

Let's clean that up:

If we know that it's going to rain tomorrow then we claim it's true that it may rain tomorrow. If we know it's not going to rain tomorrow, then we would say that it is true that it may rain tomorrow.

Or:

A1: If we know X, then it's true that X may obtain.
A2: If we know not-X, then it's true that X may obtain.

A2 is non-sequitur.

Now plug in yours:

A1: If we do not know X, then it's true that X may obtain.
A2: If we do not know not-X, then it's true that X may obtain.

Both A1 and A2 are non-sequitur. X obtaining is not contingent on our lack of knowledge of X.

What has been established? X? No. That possibility exists in our universe? No. That is already a condition of our universe.

In short, nothing has been established. There was no point to formatting any of that. "X may obtain" was not derived and does not need to be derived.

 

[Wiploc]

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.

OK, that's a rationale.

How confident are you that your reasoning is exclusively based on the form of the argument?

How to:

1. Assume the premises true.
2. Only assume the premises true.
3. Are you sure you exclusively assume the premises?

So?
EB

A valid argument is one that fulfills this requirement: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also.

If we want to go subjunctive (which, in the present tense, is the difference in "may" and "might") we phrase it this way: If the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also.

Therefore, a single example suffices to show invalidity. If there is any instance in which the premises are true and the conclusion false, then we know the argument to be invalid.

 

[Wiploc]

You may be right, and you may be wrong.

You might be right and you might be wrong.

I'm not seeing a difference,

I'm guessing you're in the majority. Distinguishing may from might may be a lost art.

And I'm not sure I've got it right myself. But I'll try to show the difference.

Present tense:
- Indicative: I am here now, and I see X.
- Subjunctive: If you were here now, you would see X.

Both are present tense, but the second one is subjunctive, counterfactual, or, as I sometimes put it, more iffy.

Past tense:
- Indicative: I was here then, and I saw X.
- Subjunctive: If I had been here then, I would have seen X.

So, if we're clear on the difference in indicative and subjunctive, let's switch to may and might:

Present tense:
- Indicative: I may be. (In Cancun? I don't know. I bought tickets. I drank a lot. I must have blacked out. I just woke up in a strange hotel room. Maybe I'm in Cancun, but I don't know.)
- Subjunctive: I might be. (In Cancun? No. If she had accepted my offer to marry, then we might have picked Cancun for our honeymoon, and I might be there now. But she didn't, so I'm not.)

Past tense:
- Indicative: I may have been in Cancun. (I was lost. It was foggy. I don't know whether I ever made it inside the limits.)
- Subjunctive: I might have been in Cancun. (If I'd remembered to by fuel before going on the highway, I might have made it that far. But I didn't, so I didn't.)

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.

I think most people don't make a distinction.

Nonetheless, there is a difference. It's a matter of proper English. I don't think we need to act like we're inventing a new dialect when we make the distinction.

I correct a lot of movie dialogue in my head when people use might instead of may. "He might be going to kill you!" Why wouldn't you want that to be immediate and possible ("He may be going to kill you") rather than hypothetical and distant.

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).

This is a syllogism, a deductive argument. In which case, not valid and invalid are the same thing.

Inductive argument (The sun has risen every morning so far, so it will probably rise tomorrow too) can be strong or weak, but it can't be valid, because that term doesn't have to do with induction. Since valid and invalid have nothing to do with induction, we can say that inductive arguments are not valid and also not invalid.

A rainbow can neither taste good nor taste bad, so we can say that it doesn't taste good without meaning that it tastes bad. In like manner, we can say that an inductive argument is not valid without being invalid.

I'm not sure that's helpful, but maybe.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

OK, that's a rationale.

How confident are you that your reasoning is exclusively based on the form of the argument?

How to:

1. Assume the premises true.
2. Only assume the premises true.
3. Are you sure you exclusively assume the premises?

So?
EB

A valid argument is one that fulfills this requirement: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also.

If we want to go subjunctive (which, in the present tense, is the difference in "may" and "might") we phrase it this way: If the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also.

Therefore, a single example suffices to show invalidity. If there is any instance in which the premises are true and the conclusion false, then we know the argument to be invalid.

Good. I'm pleased you don't understand. I was afraid I had just explained something to you.

Forget all about it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I correct a lot of movie dialogue in my head when people use might instead of may. "He might be going to kill you!" Why wouldn't you want that to be immediate and possible ("He may be going to kill you") rather than hypothetical and distant.

"He may be going to (verb)" and "He might be going to (verb)" are both very unlikely. Google is stumped.

I will guess that "may" and "might", which suggest uncertainty, don't chime with "going to", which suggests definiteness. But it may not be going to be ungrammatical, apparently. But it might be going to.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What are you trying to test? The verb or the subject? When we say, "It may rain tomorrow" we are questioning whether or not it will rain tomorrow, not whether or not we live in a universe where possibility exists. We already know that possibility exists.

And no, not the possibility of rain as you are not testing that; you are doing nothing more than affirming the word "may" and NOT "may rain." If the focus of your Premise is on the verb and not the subject of the Premise, then all you're doing is affirming "may" as a conditional, but we don't need to derive that. It is already the case.

So if all you are doing is playing logic 101 games that rely on the technicality of what "true" means in regard to premises, then you can't turn around and equivocate by saying, "No, I wanted to test whether or not it's actually going to rain tomorrow." The possibility of literally anything (that is logically possible) is already established.

Sorry, but if we don't know that it's not going to rain tomorrow then we claim it's true that it may rain tomorrow. And if we could know it's not going to rain tomorrow, then we would say that it is not true that it may rain tomorrow.

Let's clean that up:

If we know that it's going to rain tomorrow then we claim it's true that it may rain tomorrow. If we know it's not going to rain tomorrow, then we would say that it is true that it may rain tomorrow.

Or:

A1: If we know X, then it's true that X may obtain.
A2: If we know not-X, then it's true that X may obtain.

A2 is non-sequitur.

Now plug in yours:

A1: If we do not know X, then it's true that X may obtain.
A2: If we do not know not-X, then it's true that X may obtain.

Both A1 and A2 are non-sequitur. X obtaining is not contingent on our lack of knowledge of X.

What has been established? X? No. That possibility exists in our universe? No. That is already a condition of our universe.

In short, nothing has been established. There was no point to formatting any of that. "X may obtain" was not derived and does not need to be derived.

Don't bother, pal. I'm done trying to go through your diarrhoea of nonsense without going insane. Learn to debate. Then learn to debate in a rational way. Then learn.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Don't bother, pal.

"Pal"? Are you about to take your ball and go home now?

Learn to debate. Then learn to debate in a rational way. Then learn.

Pathetic. You're an intellectual coward who can only respond like a petulant child when his sophistry is revealed. Grow the fuck up.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A valid argument is one that fulfills this requirement: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also.

That's obviously not the correct way to define validity:

I am Donald Trump the President of the United States;
I am now walking on the Moon;
Therefore, Donald Trump the President of the United States is now walking on the Moon.

This argument is clearly valid and yet its premises are all false (I hope you accept that unsupported claim).

So it's not the correct way to define validity and it's in fact a very bad idea.

If we want to go subjunctive (which, in the present tense, is the difference in "may" and "might") we phrase it this way: If the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also.

That's a little bit better, but still not good enough. And, you don't do anything here with that idea.

Therefore, a single example suffices to show invalidity. If there is any instance in which the premises are true and the conclusion false, then we know the argument to be invalid.

OK, so you go back to your very bad idea. So, sure, garbage in.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

A valid argument is one that fulfills this requirement: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also.

That's obviously not the correct way to define validity:

I think it is, actually.

 

[Wiploc]

That's obviously not the correct way to define validity:


This argument is clearly valid and yet its premises are all false (I hope you accept that unsupported claim).

So it's not the correct way to define validity and it's in fact a very bad idea.

If we want to go subjunctive (which, in the present tense, is the difference in "may" and "might") we phrase it this way: If the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true also.

That's a little bit better, but still not good enough. And, you don't do anything here with that idea.

Therefore, a single example suffices to show invalidity. If there is any instance in which the premises are true and the conclusion false, then we know the argument to be invalid.

OK, so you go back to your very bad idea. So, sure, garbage in.
EB

You were rude to me, then you were rude to Koy. I could quote either of your responses to us back to you as an appropriate response now. But I don't want to be that insulting.

I don't know why you bother to talk to someone you're going to be rude to. I don't want to insult you so I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread and, if possible, put you on ignore.

Done with you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A valid argument is one that fulfills this requirement: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also.

That's obviously not the correct way to define validity:

I think it is, actually.

Yes, it is. There are alternative ways of putting it, but it is correct.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This argument is clearly valid and yet its premises are all false (I hope you accept that unsupported claim).

So it's not the correct way to define validity and it's in fact a very bad idea.

It does not follow from Wiploc's proposed definition that the premises of a valid argument are true. He said that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity depends on the form of an argument. It does not depend on the content of the premises or the conclusion.

You can easily find equivalent definitions in expert sites. For example:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

 

[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.

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.

This thread is just an offshoot of the original argument. I wasn't interested in going down a different path. I just wanted to point out that it is the conclusion that's flawed in the original syllogism, that the conclusion does not relate to the terms of the premises. That's all.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

That's obviously not the correct way to define validity:


This argument is clearly valid and yet its premises are all false (I hope you accept that unsupported claim).

So it's not the correct way to define validity and it's in fact a very bad idea.



That's a little bit better, but still not good enough. And, you don't do anything here with that idea.



OK, so you go back to your very bad idea. So, sure, garbage in.
EB

You were rude to me, then you were rude to Koy. I could quote either of your responses to us back to you as an appropriate response now. But I don't want to be that insulting.

I don't know why you bother to talk to someone you're going to be rude to. I don't want to insult you so I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread and, if possible, put you on ignore.

Done with you.

I'm rude to everyone.

Still, this thread. Fucking words. How do they work?

 

[Speakpigeon]

A valid argument is one that fulfills this requirement: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also.

That's obviously not the correct way to define validity:

I think it is, actually.

We all think something. We think differently. Proving we are correct is the difficult bit.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This argument is clearly valid and yet its premises are all false (I hope you accept that unsupported claim).

So it's not the correct way to define validity and it's in fact a very bad idea.

It does not follow from Wiploc's proposed definition that the premises of a valid argument are true. He said that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity depends on the form of an argument. It does not depend on the content of the premises or the conclusion.

But the phrase "if the premises are true" makes validity dependent on the truth of the premises, not just on their form.

You can easily find equivalent definitions in expert sites. For example:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

Sure, this is the definition accepted by modern mathematical "classical" logic, including modal logic, in computer sciences, and by may philosophers as exemplified by your link.

So?

Isn't it possible, for all you know, that I am right and all these people wrong? Copernicus was right at a time when nearly all expert opinion where wrong.

What matters to me is how people feel about example syllogisms, not what they may want to repeat as being the expert opinion. We should all know it doesn't necessarily have much value.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm rude to everyone.

Still, this thread. Fucking words. How do they work?

I'm only rude to people who are rude themselves, or condescending, or dogmatic, or who pretend to respond to one of my post without trying to articulate any relevant point or without pinpointing which part of my post they are replying to, or people who make false allegations about what I say, what I am, what I think, etc. I'm probably forgetting a few here. Unfortunately, this all came to represent a shitload of people here. Well, not my fault. I'm invariably polite to everybody else and my posts show I'm considerate, even to the louts, something many people here aren't. And of course, patience is only good for so long and some here are a stretch.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I just wanted to point out that it is the conclusion that's flawed in the original syllogism, that the conclusion does not relate to the terms of the premises.

Something you haven't been able to articulate conclusively.

You haven't shown how the argument would not be valid and you said you see the premises as true, and yet you claim the conclusion is false. Something is wrong in your position.

I provided simplified versions of the original argument to help people articulate their thinking as to why the argument would not be valid. You haven't bothered to seize these opportunities to explain yourself. Instead, you keep repeating your mantra that the conclusion of the original argument is false. That's clear evidence you don't understand how logic works.
EB