Poll on the validity of two arguments

[Logik]

I've been researching Logik/Timeseeker's rather unique brain damage for a while. Looks like he can somehow neither properly process logic nor properly process context, he has a major inferiority complex which he compensates with an apparent superiority/superhero complex, and is just generally a super-annoying narcissistic fucktard desperate for infinite attention. A kinda interesting mix.

Ah, you've noticed as well?
Yes. I think it's a seriously bad case.
I'm sure he is a nice guy in "real life". You can't possibly keep insulting people again and again for no reason unless you really like being punched hard in the face. So, I'm quite sure he behaves himself rather nicely with the neighbourhood where he lives. Maybe he does the shopping and house cleaning for the big guy next door.
Still, do we even know where he lives? I'm not sure if asylums have Internet connections for the inmates?
And, the fact is, lots of people posting on forums are somewhat beside there shoes, so to speak. He is only the worst case I've ever seen.
Please send me a private message if you know of any place where it's possible to have rational conversations.
EB

Oh, you are the punching type now? The irony of calling me a brute.

Stick to getting your ass handed to you in internet arguments.

Getting your ego bruised hurts less than getting your ass kicked.

I will give you my address. Please bring the $100 you owe me.

[Speakpigeon]

2nd argument

P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
P2 - What C does is determined by the state of some part of B;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light.
P2 - If the light is Red, the cop will issue a citation.
C - Therefore, for all we know, the citation may be determined by green.

I don't understand how it is obvious that the 2nd arg is valid.

It's not.
Here is a similar argument:

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in a traffic light;
P2 - What the driver does at a traffic light is determined by the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what the driver does at a traffic light may be determined by Green.

Can you see it's valid or not?
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

2nd argument

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light.
P2 - If the light is Red, the cop will issue a citation.
C - Therefore, for all we know, the citation may be determined by green.

I don't understand how it is obvious that the 2nd arg is valid.

It's not.
Here is a similar argument:

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in a traffic light;
P2 - What the driver does at a traffic light is determined by the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what the driver does at a traffic light may be determined by Green.

Can you see it's valid or not?
EB

So the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same. But they have be the same as each other? Or at least each part must perform an identical function without being actually identical?

Otherwise, whether we are happy with what I threw together there or not, if the two parts can perform opposing functions such as on/off then the argument becomes tricky because the outcome is determined by the 'on' but is also negatively determined by the 'off'. And it breaks if there is a third type of component available.

The thing is, I don't see in the argument as written here why B would only have one type of component. Or I don't see in P2 why that part of B must be similar/same.

[Speakpigeon]

So the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same. But they have be the same as each other? Or at least each part must perform an identical function without being actually identical?

Otherwise, whether we are happy with what I threw together there or not, if the two parts can perform opposing functions such as on/off then the argument becomes tricky because the outcome is determined by the 'on' but is also negatively determined by the 'off'. And it breaks if there is a third type of component available.

The thing is, I don't see in the argument as written here why B would only have one type of component. Or I don't see in P2 why that part of B must be similar/same.

OK, here is a new one:

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

Can you tell it is valid?
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

yes

[surreptitious57]

x and y may be the same so in that respect and that respect only the argument would be valid

[Speakpigeon]

yes

OK, so now this one:

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in a traffic light;
P2 - What the driver does at a traffic light is determined by the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what the driver does at a traffic light may be determined by Green.

What do you think? Valid or not valid?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

x and y may be the same so in that respect and that respect only the argument would be valid

The argument is valid or is not valid.
To say that "the argument would be valid" is chicken shit.
And the argument has to be assessed on the face of it, as written and as worded. Your "Would" here suggests you think something's missing, in which case the argument wouldn't be valid. But if you think something is missing, you would need to say what it is. So, what would be missing in the argument for it to be valid?
And if you accept that the argument is valid but can't get yourself to say it, then what are you even doing on a forum?! Fucking your own words?!
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

yes

OK, so now this one:

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in a traffic light;
P2 - What the driver does at a traffic light is determined by the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what the driver does at a traffic light may be determined by Green.

What do you think? Valid or not valid?
EB

I'm thinking that's an intuition pump at the moment.
But sure, if we choose to pick the same element for P1 and P2, that expression of this arg is valid.
So my question is why we must make that choice?

[Speakpigeon]

yes

OK, so now this one:

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in a traffic light;
P2 - What the driver does at a traffic light is determined by the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what the driver does at a traffic light may be determined by Green.

What do you think? Valid or not valid?
EB

But sure, if we choose to pick the same element for P1 and P2, that expression of this arg is valid.
So my question is why we must make that choice?

We don't have to. It's just a possibility. It's possible that the phrase "one of the three lamps" refers to the same thing in both premise 1 and premise 2. That's all we need, possibility.
Since it's possible, then the conclusion is true just because it specifies that "what the driver does may be determined by Green".
It may be determined by "Green" to the extent that the phrase "one of the three lamps" possibly refers to the same thing in both premise 1 and premise 2.
And this works exactly like the shorter argument on x and y.
OK, if you accept that, you're good to try again with the similar argument on the Conscious mind.
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

Your argument can also support a self contradictory conclusion in which the "may" element is untrue. It isn't a valid argument.

[Speakpigeon]

Your argument can also support a self contradictory conclusion in which the "may" element is untrue. It isn't a valid argument.

No chance.
But please try to articulate what you think would be this "self-contradictory conclusion" you're only alluding to.
If you can't, please say so.
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

Your argument can also support a self contradictory conclusion in which the "may" element is untrue. It isn't a valid argument.

No chance.
But please try to articulate what you think would be this "self-contradictory conclusion" you're only alluding to.
If you can't, please say so.
EB

Well, I did that already. But you just rewrote it to suit yourself and asked me if I understood.

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light.
P2 - If the light is Red, the cop will issue a citation.
C - Therefore, for all we know, the citation may be determined by green.

As I mentioned, it can probably be done with a little more art, but the general idea is simple enough so here's the recipe:
Your argument doesn't really lock us down to having the same sort of thing be the part of A and of B.
Nor does it force B to be a simple thing made up of only one sort of component.
So B it appears can have components that perform opposite functions and have contradictory outputs or meanings.

So when we imagine that "this may be that" must be valid because it looks superficially to cover all possible outcomes, we are overlooking that your argument might be used to arrive at a logically impossible outcome such as that the traffic cop may ticket the motorist for following the green instruction.

[Speakpigeon]

Your argument can also support a self contradictory conclusion in which the "may" element is untrue. It isn't a valid argument.

No chance.
But please try to articulate what you think would be this "self-contradictory conclusion" you're only alluding to.
If you can't, please say so.
EB

Well, I did that already. But you just rewrote it to suit yourself and asked me if I understood.

I didn't rewrite your argument. Your argument was irrelevant because it didn't have the same logical form as my argument.
So, I didn't rewrite your argument, I offered you another argument based on your example but this time with the same logical form as my initial argument, and this to help you see that it was valid.

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light.
P2 - If the light is Red, the cop will issue a citation.
C - Therefore, for all we know, the citation may be determined by green.

Sorry, your argument here again is irrelevant because the logical form is not the same. The second premise here is different from the second premise in my argument with the traffic light. So, this is irrelevant to my argument.
You claimed that my argument can support a self-contradictory conclusion. So, first you need to start from exactly the same premises as that of my argument on the traffic light, and then you need to exhibit the "self-contradictory conclusion" you have alluded to. And we will see if it follows from my premises as you claimed.
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

No chance.
But please try to articulate what you think would be this "self-contradictory conclusion" you're only alluding to.
If you can't, please say so.
EB

Well, I did that already. But you just rewrote it to suit yourself and asked me if I understood.

I didn't rewrite your argument. Your argument was irrelevant because it didn't have the same logical form as my argument.
So, I didn't rewrite your argument, I offered you another argument based on your example but this time with the same logical form as my initial argument, and this to help you see that it was valid.

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light.
P2 - If the light is Red, the cop will issue a citation.
C - Therefore, for all we know, the citation may be determined by green.

Sorry, your argument here again is irrelevant because the logical form is not the same. The second premise here is different from the second premise in my argument with the traffic light. So, this is irrelevant to my argument.
You claimed that my argument can support a self-contradictory conclusion. So, first you need to start from exactly the same premises as that of my argument on the traffic light, and then you need to exhibit the "self-contradictory conclusion" you have alluded to. And we will see if it follows from my premises as you claimed.
EB

But I don't need to follow your traffic light argument. I need to stay within the confines of this argument. The one that is actually in question.
P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
P2 - What C does is determined by the state of some part of B;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A.

So if A is Green, B is the traffic light system. C is the traffic cop and his actions are determined by another part of the traffic light system. Then I have followed the structure and jumping a green light may cause a driving citation.