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