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

[fast]

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.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Epistemologically. Not "epistemically" as you wrote.

As we all can see, there is very good empirical evidence that the Sun turns around us. And at the time, that was the only evidence available. So how do we decide that an assessment is epistemologically "improper" without the benefit of hindsight?

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.

I take it you don't like it but you're still to show how it's a poor argument.

In fact, it's a very, very good argument. It's just that you seem to prefer not to understand it.

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

Which argument? My Copernicus argument? Clearly, you failed to understand it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

I think you've put your finger on it.

Again, I think we use "may" or "might" on pragmatic grounds and we don't want to make statements that other people are likely to object to unless we have some emotional motivation to do it.

The reason to use "x may be y" rather than "x might be y" is that "might" would preempt the truth of the premise, precisely because it's not pure logical possibility but suggests probability, low probability, and if you introduce any notion of probability in your argument, it gets immediately more complicated. For example, for some interpretations of x and x, "might" will be appropriate, where for others it won't. "May" is neutral in this respect. It leaves each of us to decide whether we think the conscious mind of a person may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain. "May be p" means "we don't know that not p" and since we don't specify which p we're talking about, the argument, in its non-interpreted version, cannot assume probabilities, since this would mean something else, like "we don't know that not p but the probabilities that p are X".

And as far as I am concerned, for all I know, you may live on a different planet, but I could also come to suspect that you might well live in France.

That being said, if your use of may and might is colloquial, I won't convince you.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Epistemologically. Not "epistemically" as you wrote.

Epistemically.

As we all can see, there is very good empirical evidence that the Sun turns around us. And at the time, that was the only evidence available. So how do we decide that an assessment is epistemologically "improper" without the benefit of hindsight?

I did not say it was epistemically improper on the part of regular guys who just looked at the Sun. I'm talking about the so-called experts of the time, who tended to use even theology (!) to support their theories.

I take it you don't like it but you're still to show how it's a poor argument.

I already did, by reductio. As I mentioned, 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.

Which argument? My Copernicus argument? Clearly, you failed to understand it.

I was talking about the argument the thread is about. It is not valid.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Excellent point. It shows you're wrong.

The name of the fallacy comes from the example:

Premise 1: I know who Bomb is.
Premise 2: I do not know who the masked man is
Conclusion: Therefore, Bomb is not the masked man.

The premises may be true and the conclusion false if Bob is the masked man and the speaker does not know that. Thus the argument is a fallacious one.

I written here. All you have to do is read the bloody thing.

Here is my original argument:

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

And the Masked Man fallacy shows why those who say the argument is no valid are wrong.

Show

Take off the mask, Bob.

EB

 

[Bomb#20]

Excellent point. It shows you're wrong.

I should have said "related to" rather than "a case of". As Wikipedia says,

The fallacy is "epistemic" because it posits an immediate identity between a subject's knowledge of an object with the object itself.​

Your OP argument is propagating "may be" from x to y as though "may be" were a property of those objects; but "may be" is actually a property of subjects' knowledge of the objects.

I written here. All you have to do is read the bloody thing.

Here is my original argument:

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

And the Masked Man fallacy shows why those who say the argument is no valid are wrong.

Not seeing how you're getting that.

In any event, how to analyze the OP argument depends on exactly what we mean by "may". If we accept fast's may/might distinction, he seems to use "may" to mean something like "some evidence we have makes it more likely that". So if what your argument means is:

Some evidence we have makes it more likely that x is some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, some evidence we have makes it more likely that x is y.​

then that makes it instantly clear that it's not a valid argument -- because it's not a deductive argument at all. It's an inductive argument, and inductive arguments are strong or weak, not valid or invalid. (And of course this also brings in issues of the philosophy of probability, which is a whole new can of worms.)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your OP argument is propagating "may be" from x to y as though "may be" were a property of those objects; but "may be" is actually a property of subjects' knowledge of the objects.

Thank you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I should have said "related to" rather than "a case of". As Wikipedia says,

The fallacy is "epistemic" because it posits an immediate identity between a subject's knowledge of an object with the object itself.​

Your OP argument is propagating "may be" from x to y as though "may be" were a property of those objects;

No, it does not.

And I already explained many times, in previous threads, to both DBT and Koyaanisqatsi, that "may" is the modal verb signalling logical possibility, which can be best expressed by saying that p may be true if we don't know that p is false.

but "may be" is actually a property of subjects' knowledge of the objects.

Exactly.

So, where did you get the idea we disagreed on that?!

In any event, how to analyze the OP argument depends on exactly what we mean by "may". If we accept fast's may/might distinction, he seems to use "may" to mean something like "some evidence we have makes it more likely that".

No, I already explained many times, in previous threads, to both DBT and Koyaanisqatsi, that "may" is the modal verb signalling logical possibility, which can be best expressed by saying that p may be true if we don't know that p is false.

So, don't make up stuff. Fast's analysis is wrong and I already explained as much.

So if what your argument means is:

Some evidence we have makes it more likely that x is some part of B;
y is some part of B;
Therefore, some evidence we have makes it more likely that x is y.​

No, that's not what it means.

then that makes it instantly clear that it's not a valid argument -- because it's not a deductive argument at all. It's an inductive argument, and inductive arguments are strong or weak, not valid or invalid. (And of course this also brings in issues of the philosophy of probability, which is a whole new can of worms.)

What is not valid is the argument you redacted. Sure, I agree. Mine is valid.

OK, now I told you how to interpret the argument properly, I'll be waiting for you rectification.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your OP argument is propagating "may be" from x to y as though "may be" were a property of those objects; but "may be" is actually a property of subjects' knowledge of the objects.

Thank you.

And I explained many times, in previous threads, that "may" is the modal verb signalling logical possibility, which can be best expressed by saying that p may be true if we don't know that p is false.

So your "thank you" here just shows you have a very selective memory.
EB

 

[jab]

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

depends what "may be" in the first proposition means.
If it means It is possible for x in its totality to be part ob B, and if it can never be in whole or in part not part of B," then the answer is yes.
If it means, sometimes all or part of x is part of B, but sometimes all or part of x is not part of B, then the answer is no.

 

[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

depends what "may be" in the first proposition means.

The modal "may" signals epistemological possibility, i.e. p may be true if we don't know that p is false.

If it means It is possible for x in its totality to be part ob B, and if it can never be in whole or in part not part of B," then the answer is yes.
If it means, sometimes all or part of x is part of B, but sometimes all or part of x is not part of B, then the answer is no.

I would have thought the meaning was clear enough...

If x may be some part of B then of course x may also NOT be some part of B. Otherwise, we would say x IS some part of B.

Also, if x is a part of B then it is entirely a part of B, although that wouldn't affect validity.

And since x may also not be a part of B then it may be partially or entirely outside of B.
EB