Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does

[FlashDangerpants]

If you want your collection of statements to add up to a deductive argument that could be valid you must formulate it such that the conclusion is dependent on the premises.

That is necessary but insufficient.

You must also structure the argument in such a way so that it's impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true.

As soon as you produce such an argument, please claim your Nobel Prize in Physics for having discovered The Theory of Everything.

Good point. When you persuade SpankPenguin that the therefore must act as a turnstile and indicate actual entailment, you probably deserve a prize yourself.

[Skip]

This thread is explicitly about the soundness of the argument, not the soundness of Speakpigeon.

I suspect they're the same. There is no argument, just a bunch of indefinite suppositions.

If you can't get yourself to address the topic, go play in the courtyard.

Exactly!

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is a poll on the soundness of a logical argument.
Here is the argument:

For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.

Is this argument sound?
Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

An argument has a definitive conclusion to it but that one does not so its not an argument as such

The definitive conclusion is that therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave

The phrase for all we know is the opposite of definitive and so the conclusion cannot be described as such

OK, this certainly shows either you don't understand English or you don't speak English.
So, from now on, please ignore my threads.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Sure those statements are true. But it makes no difference because this statement is true with or without them.
- for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.
Deductive validity can only apply to deductions. Putting "therefore" in front of a statement that is true in it's own right does not make it a deduction from previous statements. That is an act of blatant misdirection.
If you want your collection of statements to add up to a deductive argument that could be valid you must formulate it such that the conclusion is dependent on the premises.

This thread is about the validity of the argument, not whether the argument is useful.
If you can't address the thread's question, you can leave.
From what you say here, it is obvious you haven't a clue what is a deductive argument and what is the validity of such.
It's up to you to articulate why the argument is or isn't valid.
Short of that, this is a derail.
EB

[Logik]

it is obvious you haven't a clue what is a deductive argument and what is the validity of such.

Neither do you. You are yet to demonstrate one.

And you still haven't stepped up to the $100 challenge.

P1. If you are right, then you will win $100
P2. You believe to be right
C So you should be winning $100

As easy as deduction!

[Speakpigeon]

Here is the OP again for those who are prepared to argue their point:

This thread is a poll on the soundness of a logical argument.
Here is the argument:

For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.

Is this argument sound?
Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB

[surreptitious57]

For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave

Is this argument sound

No that argument is not sound and neither is this one

A wave is the state of water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of the water
So therefore what the buoy does is determined by the wave

[Age]

Here is the OP again for those who are prepared to argue their point:

This thread is a poll on the soundness of a logical argument.
Here is the argument:

For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.

Is this argument sound?

No.

Thank you to vote before posting any comment here.
You will be able to change your vote if need be.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave

Is this argument sound

No that argument is not sound

Why is it not sound?

and neither is this one

A wave is the state of water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of the water
So therefore what the buoy does is determined by the wave

Irrelevant.
Your argument has not the same logical form as my own.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

For all we know, a wave may be the state of some water in the sea;
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea;
Therefore, for all we know, what the buoy does may be determined by a wave.

Is this argument sound?

No.

So, why?
Can you explain?
EB

[Age]

Is this argument sound?

No.

So, why?
Can you explain?
EB

Yes.

The second sentence/premise is NOT necessarily true.

[surreptitious57]

For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave

Is this argument sound

No that argument is not sound

It is not absolutely true both within and without the context of the argument as is required
As a sound argument has to be rigorous enough for there to be no alternative interpretation

[Speakpigeon]

No.

So, why?
Can you explain?
EB

Yes.

The second sentence/premise is NOT necessarily true.

OK, good point, but does that make the argument unsound? And why?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave
Is this argument sound

No that argument is not sound
It is not absolutely true both within and without the context of the argument as is required

You mean the premises are not true? Please clarify.

As a sound argument has to be rigorous enough for there to be no alternative interpretation

Just to claim it does isn't quite enough. You would need to articulate explicitly some "alternative interpretation".
EB