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

[ruby sparks]

I think it is, actually.

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

The conclusion is true if the premises are true. That's it. As far as validity is concerned. The premises don't have to be true. We're doing validity, not truth.

 

[Learner]

Perhaps I'm seeing it wrong (simplisticly). I chose yes because either result "whether having part of, or not having part of" is true anyway, therefore valid.

 

[fast]

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

If something may be the case, then the case is logically possible, but the inverse, however, is not true; thus, just because something is logically possible, that’s no good reason to think something MAY be the case; might be the case, yes, but may be the case, no. That’s because “may” carries a weight stronger than a mere bare possibility.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

If something may be the case, then the case is logically possible, but the inverse, however, is not true; thus, just because something is logically possible, that’s no good reason to think something MAY be the case; might be the case, yes, but may be the case, no. That’s because “may” carries a weight stronger than a mere bare possibility.

As I said, it will depend on pragmatics. In everyday speech, face to face, you're much less likely to speak on mere logical possibility from left field unless you want to loose your friends and your job. But using "may" is nonetheless the more natural way to talk about logical possibilities, i.e. possibilities about which you have no probabilities: The mind may be a physical phenomenon. The mind may be a part of God. You can't use "might" here without suggesting you have empirical evidence as to probabilities, which you don't. You will use "might" only to signify you don't believe it's true, but you will use "may" if you want to remain agnostic.

Still, you can try to provide examples of what you see as logical possibilities for which people wouldn't want to or shouldn't use "may".
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps I'm seeing it wrong (simplisticly). I chose yes because either result "whether having part of, or not having part of" is true anyway, therefore valid.

And that's all good to me.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

The conclusion is true if the premises are true. That's it. As far as validity is concerned. The premises don't have to be true. We're doing validity, not truth.

Your choice.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Perhaps I'm seeing it wrong (simplisticly). I chose yes because either result "whether having part of, or not having part of" is true anyway, therefore valid.

I think Wiploc nailed it:

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.

"In logic, an argument is 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. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

Iow, a counter-example is sufficient to demonstrate that an argument is not valid.

I voted 'yes' too, but now I think I was wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your choice.
EB

Not really. More to do with the definition of validity and it not being met in this case, it would seem.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

No, because he said "if the premises are true", then the conclusion must be true. He may not have put it in the clearest manner, but your interpretation of his proposal is mistaken. He did not mean what you think he meant.

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?

No, it is not the case that we are wrong, and you are correct. By the way, I'm not making an assessment based on the fact that those people say that. I can assess the matter on my own.
Whether it is 'possible', well, what do you mean by that?

Copernicus was right at a time when nearly all expert opinion where wrong.

Where they actually experts?
But for that matter, a Moon Landing denialist can say the same - i.e., so many experts wrong, etc. It is not a good argument at all.

ETA: The word 'valid' has a meaning. If you believe that the usual definition of 'valid' is not useful - for whatever reason -, then you are mistaken, but even if you were correct, the fact would remain that the argument is not valid. The meaning of 'valid' is what it is, and it is what those experts are saying that it is.

 

[DBT]

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.

What I articulated was more than adequate to establish the fact that your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

The reason why is abundantly clear.

That you cannot comprehend the reason why your conclusion does not follow from your premises is probably due to a flaw or glitch in your cognitive processes.....which are in your own words, 'a state of collection of neurons in your brain' and not something you choose to do consciously.

In case you were wondering about the references, that was another clue to the failure of your conclusion.

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.

All I had to do is explain why your conclusion does not follow from your premises. That was done several times.

Basically, if it is 'somebody's conscious mind is the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain and what someone does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain - your premises - it cannot be somebody's conscious mind that determines what someone does (your conclusion), it must be the state of a group of neurons that determines both someones conscious mind and whatever they happen to do.

This is not hard to grasp.


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 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

Logic? Your simplified version was irrelevant.

As for 'mantra,' this is not a complicated issue, it doesn't require pages of discussion.

The reason why your conclusion fails having been explained long before you posted your 'simplified versions' - which are just smokescreens for your inability or unwillingness to understand what was explained.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps I'm seeing it wrong (simplisticly). I chose yes because either result "whether having part of, or not having part of" is true anyway, therefore valid.

I think Wiploc nailed it:

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.

"In logic, an argument is 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. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)

Iow, a counter-example is sufficient to demonstrate that an argument is not valid.

I voted 'yes' too, but now I think I was wrong.

Yes, indeed, Wiploc nailed it. That is essentially the error being made in the original argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your choice.
EB

Not really. More to do with the definition of validity and it not being met in this case, it would seem.

Your choice not to read English properly. It's right there in your face. You read it, you don't understand. Your choice.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, because he said "if the premises are true", then the conclusion must be true. He may not have put it in the clearest manner, but your interpretation of his proposal is mistaken. He did not mean what you think he meant.


No, it is not the case that we are wrong, and you are correct. By the way, I'm not making an assessment based on the fact that those people say that. I can assess the matter on my own.
Whether it is 'possible', well, what do you mean by that?

Copernicus was right at a time when nearly all expert opinion where wrong.

Where they actually experts?
But for that matter, a Moon Landing denialist can say the same - i.e., so many experts wrong, etc. It is not a good argument at all.

ETA: The word 'valid' has a meaning. If you believe that the usual definition of 'valid' is not useful - for whatever reason -, then you are mistaken, but even if you were correct, the fact would remain that the argument is not valid. The meaning of 'valid' is what it is, and it is what those experts are saying that it is.

OK, good, I'm French and Aristotle was Greek so that may explain a lot.

Still, I can read good translations of Aristotle in French and in English.

And I understand what the word "eureka" means.

An expert is just someone with experience, superior skills and knowledge of the theories and methods pertaining to his field of expertise. There's nothing that says that an expert necessarily is right or that he necessarily knows the truth.

Such is life.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, indeed, Wiploc nailed it.

Yeah, and Judah nailed it, too.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Your choice.
EB

Not really. More to do with the definition of validity and it not being met in this case, it would seem.

Your choice not to read English properly. It's right there in your face. You read it, you don't understand. Your choice.
EB

Please explain to me where I'm now wrong. Because if you can do that, I'll change my mind again.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your choice not to read English properly. It's right there in your face. You read it, you don't understand. Your choice.
EB

Please explain to me where I'm now wrong. Because if you can do that, I'll change my mind again.

Sorry, I could but I won't. I'm not interested in proving to you or anyone that the argument is valid. I asked you whether it was valid.

I'm interested in gathering empirical evidence about why people fail to reason logically even though they have a near-perfect sense of logic and presumably logical intuitions, too.

Can you believe that?

I think it's Locke who nailed it. Formalism is hard on us. He assessed that Aristotle's syllogistic was not very useful because the logic was so obvious without any formal expression and that syllogisms themselves were even counterproductive in that the formalism could hamper our logical sense.

Or maybe he said something else.

So, words are spanners in the logical works. And there's pretty good evidence of that here.

Oh, well, never mind, I might be wrong.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

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

The lost boy may be a member of the Boy Scouts.
Bobby is a member of the Boy Scouts;
Therefore, the lost boy may be Bobby.

Yep, that's basically it, if people could just listen to the sweet music of words... And let their brain make up its mind!
EB

I don't think fast intended that example to support your contention. Let's provide it with a bit of possible context...

[A roomful of people are preparing to go out into the woods to try to find the lost boy.]

Frank: Does anyone have any idea who the lost boy might be?

Erin: The lost boy may be a member of the Boy Scouts.

Dave: Bobby is a member of the Boy Scouts; Therefore, the lost boy may be Bobby.

Cindy: What do you think of that deduction, Bobby?

Bobby: Well, it seems to me that's really a dumb argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yep, that's basically it, if people could just listen to the sweet music of words... And let their brain make up its mind!
EB

I don't think fast intended that example to support your contention. Let's provide it with a bit of possible context...

[A roomful of people are preparing to go out into the woods to try to find the lost boy.]

Frank: Does anyone have any idea who the lost boy might be?

Erin: The lost boy may be a member of the Boy Scouts.

Dave: Bobby is a member of the Boy Scouts; Therefore, the lost boy may be Bobby.

Cindy: What do you think of that deduction, Bobby?

Bobby: Well, it seems to me that's really a dumb argument.

Gregory: Me, I wish it had been Bobby.

George: Yeah, it might have been.

Frank: What do you mean, George?

George: We all know Dave is a punk. Bobby was part of the group that went fishing. That's when one of the boy went missing. It could have been any of them. It could have been Bobby.

Cindy: That's right, and Speakpigeon already explained why providing a counterexample in this case doesn't work.

Gregory: Yes, that's right, I remember. But people won't listen.

Cindy: What's his name, the lost boy?

Erin: That's the thing, we don't even know.

Bobby: You mean, it may be "Bobby"?

Erin: It may well be "Bobby".

Bobby: Gosh.

Show

Lost boy: Hey, my name's Bobby! Hey, you hear?! Bloody Hell; they can't hear me!

Speakpigeon: Good story, though. And, of course, you still haven't explained at all how fast did intend the story to support my contention.

Bobby: Your turn. We're writing a good one, I think!
EB

 

[DBT]

Yes, indeed, Wiploc nailed it.

Yeah, and Judah nailed it, too.
EB

A caustic reply doesn't change the fact that Wiploc understood the problem, and clearly defined it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, because he said "if the premises are true", then the conclusion must be true. He may not have put it in the clearest manner, but your interpretation of his proposal is mistaken. He did not mean what you think he meant.


No, it is not the case that we are wrong, and you are correct. By the way, I'm not making an assessment based on the fact that those people say that. I can assess the matter on my own.
Whether it is 'possible', well, what do you mean by that?

Copernicus was right at a time when nearly all expert opinion where wrong.

Where they actually experts?
But for that matter, a Moon Landing denialist can say the same - i.e., so many experts wrong, etc. It is not a good argument at all.

ETA: The word 'valid' has a meaning. If you believe that the usual definition of 'valid' is not useful - for whatever reason -, then you are mistaken, but even if you were correct, the fact would remain that the argument is not valid. The meaning of 'valid' is what it is, and it is what those experts are saying that it is.

OK, good, I'm French and Aristotle was Greek so that may explain a lot.

Still, I can read good translations of Aristotle in French and in English.

And I understand what the word "eureka" means.

An expert is just someone with experience, superior skills and knowledge of the theories and methods pertaining to his field of expertise. There's nothing that says that an expert necessarily is right or that he necessarily knows the truth.

Such is life.
EB

Well, you just defined "expert" in terms of "field of expertise". What was their field of expertise? Theories based on epistemically improper assessments? The matter is pretty different in this case.

And of course, I was not suggesting that an expert (in the usual sense of that word) is necessarily right, but that your argument using Copernicus was a pretty poor one.

Anyway, the argument is invalid, even if you will never realize that it is.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think fast intended that example to support your contention. Let's provide it with a bit of possible context...

[A roomful of people are preparing to go out into the woods to try to find the lost boy.]

Frank: Does anyone have any idea who the lost boy might be?

Erin: The lost boy may be a member of the Boy Scouts.

Dave: Bobby is a member of the Boy Scouts; Therefore, the lost boy may be Bobby.

Cindy: What do you think of that deduction, Bobby?

Bobby: Well, it seems to me that's really a dumb argument.

Gregory: Me, I wish it had been Bobby.

George: Yeah, it might have been.

Frank: What do you mean, George?

George: We all know Dave is a punk. Bobby was part of the group that went fishing. That's when one of the boy went missing. It could have been any of them. It could have been Bobby.

And the "may/might/could have" distinction rears its ugly head again. Sure, there are possible worlds where Bobby was the one who went missing; but the characters in the room know theirs isn't one of those worlds since they're looking right at him. In the sense in which these people are using "may be", it's not the case that "the lost boy may be Bobby".

Cindy: That's right, and Speakpigeon already explained why providing a counterexample in this case doesn't work.

Cindy wouldn't have said that. Cindy is smart. If you're going to put words in my characters' mouths, try to keep them in character. If you can't do that, scriptwrite your own characters.

[Not-Cindy]: That's right, and Speakpigeon already explained why providing a counterexample in this case doesn't work.

Cindy: Speakpigeon didn't explain it. He claimed it, without providing a good reason; and Bomb#20 refuted him in post #16; and Speakpigeon never replied to that. Bomb#20, fast and wiploc all provided counterexamples, and all their counterexamples work. Dave's argument is plainly invalid. And Bobby here is the living proof of that.

Gregory: Yes, that's right, I remember. But people won't listen.

[Not-Cindy]: What's his name, the lost boy?

Erin: That's the thing, we don't even know.

Bobby: You mean, it may be "Bobby"?

See above.

[Not-Bobby]: You mean, it may be "Bobby"?

Erin: It may well be "Bobby".

[Not-Bobby]: Gosh.

Show

Lost boy: Hey, my name's Bobby! Hey, you hear?! Bloody Hell; they can't hear me!

Speakpigeon: Good story, though. And, of course, you still haven't explained at all how fast did intend the story to support my contention.

Excuse me? I didn't say he intended it to support your contention. I don't think he did. But this isn't a question to be settled by debate; it's up to fast to clarify his intention if he wants to. It looks to me like fast was providing a counterexample, just as I had, just as wiploc did later. (Not sure why wiploc's version 3.0 convinced some people right after mine and fast's like silent raindrops fell; but bravo to wiploc for explanatory skill. )

[Not-Bobby]: Your turn. We're writing a good one, I think!
EB

Bobby: Oh for the love of god! Dave didn't say " 'named Bobby' is a member of the Boy Scouts; Therefore, the lost boy may be named Bobby." He clearly wasn't referring to some hypothetical person with the same name as me; he was referring to me. Dave doesn't know who the lost boy is, so if Dave had meant some arbitrary unidentified person named Bobby, how would he know he was a Boy Scout? Dave said "Bobby is a member of the Boy Scouts." because he knows I am a Boy Scout. Duh!

 

[Bomb#20]

Incidentally, I think the OP argument is a case of the infamous Masked-man fallacy.