POLL: Is the argument valid?

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is a poll on a logical argument.

Thank you to vote before posting any comment on the argument.

Here is the logical argument:

For all we know, A may be the state of B;
What C does is determined by the state of B;
Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Is the argument valid?
EB

 

[untermensche]

1. A may be B

2. C = B

3. Therefore A may be C

Sure. It follows.

 

[James Brown]

I have no formal education in logic. I'm confused by the phrasing "may be the state of."

When I hear, "the state of" I think of a condition, a temporary status. I work it out like so...

"Depressed" may be the state of "Jessica" (because she's been listening to sad music.)

What "Brian, Jessica's boyfriend" does (go out drinking with his buddies because his girlfriend is questioning their relationship. Again.) is determined by the state of "Jessica."

Therefore, for all we know, what Brian does may be determined by Depression.
​

I voted Yes, but I may have to change to "I don't know."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I answered Yes because of the vague and ambiguous nature of the word "may". A and B are similar, so there is a possible relationship between A and C because of the possible relationship between B and C.

For instance, if A and B are different kinds of food and eating B makes you fat, it could very well be that eating A makes you fat as well.

 

[Speakpigeon]

1. A may be B

2. C = B

3. Therefore A may be C

Sure. It follows.

Thank you for replying here, but why not cast your vote, too?
EB

 

[DBT]

A syllogism is of course a valid form of argument. The issue is whether the conclusion of the syllogism is valid. The validity of the conclusion is related to the given premises and must be supported by the terms of the premises. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, if the conclusion is not supported by the premises, the argument fails.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have no formal education in logic. I'm confused by the phrasing "may be the state of."

When I hear, "the state of" I think of a condition, a temporary status. I work it out like so...

"Depressed" may be the state of "Jessica" (because she's been listening to sad music.)

What "Brian, Jessica's boyfriend" does (go out drinking with his buddies because his girlfriend is questioning their relationship. Again.) is determined by the state of "Jessica."

Therefore, for all we know, what Brian does may be determined by Depression.
​

I voted Yes, but I may have to change to "I don't know."

I think the doubts you express here come from the fact that your own example is slightly off, which is straight away signalled by your use of the quotes around "Depressed".

So, first, the statement "A may be the state of B" should be understood as exactly what it says. So, if A is indeed the state B, then A is nothing but the state of B. However, your "Depression" here is more readily understood as the name of a medical condition that effectively affects millions of people. As such, "Depression" is not understood as the state of Jessica and thus, the idea that what Brian does is determined by "Depression" seems to say that what Brian does is determined by depression as the medical condition affecting millions of people, which seems wrong.

Second, the word "Jessica" is normally understood as referring to a person and while we think it may be true to say that a person is in a state of depression, we don't usually think it is true to say that depression is the state of a person. So, your premise probably sounds false even to you. Here again, for the premise "A may be the state of B" to be accepted as true, we need to be able to think of A as being the state of B and not the state of something else. Depression is not understood as the state of a person. but as a state the person may be in.

So, it's not depression, understood as the medical condition of millions of people, but Jessica's depression, which is relevant here. And it's not Jessica's state, but the state Jessica is in.

Reworded accordingly, the argument should immediately sound much less doubtful to you, and I hope obviously valid:

Jessica's depression may be the state Jessica is in
What Brian does is determined by the state Jessica is in
Therefore, What Brian does is determined by Jessica's depression

That's obviously a different argument, but part of the logical structure is the same and should help you accept the original argument.

Thank you to say whether this helps or not.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I answered Yes because of the vague and ambiguous nature of the word "may". A and B are similar, so there is a possible relationship between A and C because of the possible relationship between B and C.

For instance, if A and B are different kinds of food and eating B makes you fat, it could very well be that eating A makes you fat as well.

I'm good with that as to substance.

I would quibble on what you say about the word "may". The word itself is perfectly non-ambiguous and not at all vague as to what it means. And to say that for all we know, P may be true, just means that we don't know of any fact F such that F implies that P is false.

Thanks also for casting a vote.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A syllogism is of course a valid form of argument. The issue is whether the conclusion of the syllogism is valid. The validity of the conclusion is related to the given premises and must be supported by the terms of the premises. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, if the conclusion is not supported by the premises, the argument fails.

A conclusion is valid if and only if the argument is valid. That's the same thing exactly. No difference.

A valid conclusion may be true or false. If the premises are true and the conclusion valid, then the conclusion is necessarily true by definition. You cannot have true premises and a conclusion which is both valid and false.

If you think that the conclusion is false, then you need to decide whether it is because the premises are false or whether it is because the conclusion is not valid (or both).

And in both cases, you need to explain why. Merely making an unsupported claim is of not interest to anyone.

And so what you say here doesn't make sense.

Further, this thread is about a particular argument. If you can't get yourself to cast your vote, please abstain from any comment.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thank to the following people to cast their vote:

Bronzeage
Iznomneak
Keith&Co.
The AntiChris
Cheerful Charlie
DBT
abaddon
J842P
untermensche
Treedbear
steve_bank
Politesse
​

If you can't vote because the option you favour is missing, then please post a comment to that effect.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Since there are only four who voted and there are 12 names on the list presented as having voted by Speakpigeon his published claim about those who voted is not true.

In addition I voted and my name is not listed on his list further falsifies his claim about the state of those who voted.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I cannot comment on posts I don't read.

What is true now may not have been true then.

Anyway, thanks for voting.
EB

 

[Wiploc]

I voted no.

But, while drafting my explanation of why, I changed my mind.

So I'd change my vote if I could.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I voted no.

But, while drafting my explanation of why, I changed my mind.

So I'd change my vote if I could.

On the one hand it's unfortunate, on the other it shows that articulating your point may help you think.

And I guess you may want to think twice before casting your vote on the second poll.

Thanks for voting, anyway.

I think polls should allow voters to change their votes, which is the point of debating about it.
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I answered Yes because of the vague and ambiguous nature of the word "may". A and B are similar, so there is a possible relationship between A and C because of the possible relationship between B and C.

For instance, if A and B are different kinds of food and eating B makes you fat, it could very well be that eating A makes you fat as well.

I'm good with that as to substance.

I would quibble on what you say about the word "may". The word itself is perfectly non-ambiguous and not at all vague as to what it means. And to say that for all we know, P may be true, just means that we don't know of any fact F such that F implies that P is false.

Thanks also for casting a vote.
EB

I don't agree. Something which gives a probability range between 0.1% and 99.9% sounds fairly vague to me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I answered Yes because of the vague and ambiguous nature of the word "may".

I would quibble on what you say about the word "may". The word itself is perfectly non-ambiguous and not at all vague as to what it means. And to say that for all we know, P may be true, just means that we don't know of any fact F such that F implies that P is false.

I don't agree. Something which gives a probability range between 0.1% and 99.9% sounds fairly vague to me.

By that account, any probability is by nature vague and ambiguous, to use your words.
EB

 

[Wiploc]

For all we know, A may be the state of B;
What C does is determined by the state of B;
Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Is the argument valid?

"For all we know" changes nothing. That's redundant given the word "may" that follows. So I'll simplify by eliminating it.

A may be the state of B;
What C does is determined by the state of B;
Therefore, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Let X = "the state of B".

A may be X;
What C does is determined by X;
Therefore, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Let Y = "what C does".

A may be X;
Y is determined by X;
Therefore, Y may be determined by A.

​

Looks valid to me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"For all we know" changes nothing. That's redundant given the word "may" that follows. So I'll simplify by eliminating it.

There are very different notions of possibility, so "for all we know" serves to signal it's epistemological possibility (S4 in modal logic).

The "for all we know" should be what decides of the truth of both the first premise and the conclusion, hence, whether the argument is sound. Here, however, given that the argument is in the abstract, the terms in the premises don't refer to anything and so what we know doesn't affects validity. However, should you replace A, B and C with concrete words, the truth of premises and conclusion becomes as issue as to soundness. And, apparently, it does affect how some people assess validity.

A may be the state of B;
What C does is determined by the state of B;
Therefore, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Let X = "the state of B".

A may be X;
What C does is determined by X;
Therefore, what C does may be determined by A.

​

Let Y = "what C does".

A may be X;
Y is determined by X;
Therefore, Y may be determined by A.

​

Looks valid to me.

OK, so you may want to try and answer poll 2.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

People who are motivated enough to view this thread but can't get themselves to cast their vote should know that makes them look fairly ridiculous.

Bronzeage, Sajara, Iznomneak, Keith&Co., The AntiChris, Cheerful Charlie, loose cannon, Tharmas, DBT, abaddon, J842P, untermensche, Treedbear, steve_bank, Politesse.

The last to vote will be suspected of voting on the basis of other people's votes.

Your choice, though.
EB

 

[Wiploc]

OK, so you may want to try and answer poll 2.
EB

Sure, I was gonna, until I realized that Speakpidgeon would judge my timing.