Actually I already stated that if I interpret the argument the way I think you interpret it and I ignore the issues (to me), then I think both arguments are valid, obviously.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:37 amYou're welcome.
No.
What isn't?And then, what's the problem with that? Please don't answer that.
Anyway, you're posts are just a derail.
You obviously like to address issues you think you have something to say while failing to address the OP's question, which is as to the validity of the arguments. There's nothing in what you've said so far that addresses that.
Have an ice day.
EB
Poll on the validity of two arguments
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
Oh I don't comment seriously on this forum since ages, I too just kinda want to see what great truths they want to impart to us.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:48 pm Personally I don't really care, it's the trap that makes this thread worth a glance. I'm really just loitering to see if and how this turns into an argument about God.
Last edited by Atla on Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
Very funny, but this trick won't work. "Cow" is concrete.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:54 pm For example, the notion of cow is abstract. It is abstract merely by not referring to any single actual cow.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
You do it as you please. I just asked for validity, I didn't specify how you're supposed to do that.
People have long assessed the validity of syllogisms without the benefit of computer sciences.
Good. The only one to vote "valid", I will guess.
I didn't ask for "establishing". Only whether the argument was valid.
You didn't do that. You just barged in with your irrelevant computer science condition on what kind of states are eligible for consideration in computer sciences.
I'm sure, but my point was that if you can't articulate a coherent point of view relevant to this thread, then you better abstain.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 pmIt is exceptionally coherent and relevant. If you understand the theory.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:11 pm If you can't articulate a coherent point of view relevant to this thread, then please just abstain.
Oh, so it's not you who voted for validity, after all.
So, what use is your computer science training? The argument is really simple. Maybe not necessarily obvious for everybody, I accept that, but for a student in computer sciences, it should be a piece of cake.
Still there?! Weren't you supposed to be out?
Make yourself useful and try to post a better formalisation of the argument. It's a good exercise.
EB
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
Prove it.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:18 pmVery funny, but this trick won't work. "Cow" is concrete.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:54 pm For example, the notion of cow is abstract. It is abstract merely by not referring to any single actual cow.
What concrete thing is "cow"?
Apart from an instance of the word "cow".
EB
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
If you think you can ascertain/establish/assert/determine/claim/posit/argue/maintain the validity of an argument without understanding semantics and grammar, I think you have some deep misconceptions about logic.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 pm I didn't ask for "establishing". Only whether the argument was valid.
You know like when you said 'cow' Is abstract until it applies to any particular cow?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 pm You didn't do that. You just barged in with your irrelevant computer science condition on what kind of states are eligible for consideration in computer sciences.
State (or statefulness) is not abstract in computer science or statistical mechanics. It's a very concrete term with a precise mathematical meaning.
It's so concrete that every way that you have demonstrated the use of 'state' falls in the general definition of 'state' as used by computer scientists, statisticians and physicists.
Even if it may seem rather Platonic.
Articulation is distinct from comprehension.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 pm I'm sure, but my point was that if you can't articulate a coherent point of view relevant to this thread, then you better abstain.
I can't reformalize an argument I don't understand any more than you can translate the sentence "Urgen lightman es shmurgen."Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 pm Make yourself useful and try to post a better formalisation of the argument. It's a good exercise.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
OK, so, for the 2nd argument, you don't think that the argument is made invalid by the fact that the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same?
EB
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
Of course not, if I interpret it correctly, we are talking about mere possibility here.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:28 pmOK, so, for the 2nd argument, you don't think that the argument is made invalid by the fact that the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same?
EB
"C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A."
In other words: it's possible that what C does is determined by A. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Last edited by Atla on Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:28 pm OK, so, for the 2nd argument, you don't think that the argument is made invalid by the fact that the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same?
EB
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
Suppose that B is composed of two parts. B = [B1, B2]
Suppose that C is determined by B1, but NOT B2.
If A is the state of B1 and C is determined by B1, then C is determined by A.
If A is the state of B2 and C is determined by B1, then C is NOT determined by A.
The fact that you use MAY instead of MUST makes the conclusion true as long as any one permutation makes the conclusion true.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
OK, I guess that was Lesson 1.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:24 pmIf you think you can ascertain/establish/assert/determine/claim/posit/argue/maintain the validity of an argument without understanding semantics and grammar, I think you have some deep misconceptions about logic.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 pm I didn't ask for "establishing". Only whether the argument was valid.
I'll be waiting for Lesson 2.
I didn't do that. I was talking about the notion of cow: "the notion of cow is abstract".
And concerning not notions but words, I added: "the notion of being abstract is misused to make the trivial distinction between so-called concrete terms referring to things you can perceive directly with your senses, likes cows,...".
Stop misrepresenting what I say.
And if you can't read properly what I say, no doubt "parsing" the argument is beyond your capabilities.
All this is irrelevant to the question of the validity of the argument, as I already told you, I think.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:24 pmState (or statefulness) is not abstract in computer science or statistical mechanics. It's a very concrete term with a precise mathematical meaning. It's so concrete that every way that you have demonstrated the use of 'state' falls in the general definition of 'state' as used by computer scientists, statisticians and physicists. Even if it may seem rather Platonic.
But why can't you understand the argument?! It's an uncomplicated argument and it's couched in ordinary, everyday English and validity doesn't even require you to know what lexical terms like "state" mean. Apparently, your training his hampering your ability to understand simple English sentences.
EB
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
Hmm. A bit vague, that, as an explanation. I'm still unsure you understand the argument. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:43 pmOf course not, if I interpret it correctly, we are talking about mere possibility here.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:28 pmOK, so, for the 2nd argument, you don't think that the argument is made invalid by the fact that the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same?
"C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A."
In other words: it's possible that what C does is determined by A. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
EB
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6302
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
If I'm even more honest, I'm mostly waiting to see 'philosopher' get totally mugged. I reckon he will end up agreeing he is logically compelled to worship Satan within before the week is out.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:16 pmOh I don't comment seriously on this forum since ages, I too just kinda want to see what great truths they want to impart to us.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:48 pm Personally I don't really care, it's the trap that makes this thread worth a glance. I'm really just loitering to see if and how this turns into an argument about God.
- Speakpigeon
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
- Location: Paris, France, EU
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
OK, good, excellent, you're the King of Logic.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:43 pmP1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:28 pm OK, so, for the 2nd argument, you don't think that the argument is made invalid by the fact that the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same?
EB
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
Suppose that B is composed of two parts. B = [B1, B2]
Suppose that C is determined by B1, but NOT B2.
If A is the state of B1 and C is determined by B1, then C is determined by A.
If A is the state of B2 and C is determined by B1, then C is NOT determined by A.
The fact that you use MAY instead of MUST makes the conclusion true as long as any one permutation makes the conclusion true.
And the explanation is articulate and concise. Very good!
Actually, you're the first to articulate this aspect of the argument, and I've been trying to get people to do that for a while now. A few people have been adamant that the argument is invalid because they say it suffers from "undistributed middle", if you know what that is.
Since there isn't much else to understand, so, suddenly you can understand the argument?!
So you accept the argument is valid, or is it still somehow nonsense?
EB
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
Part of B in premise 1 and part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same, but it's possible that they are the same, and that's enough. If there's supposed to be more to the argument then I don't see it.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:52 pmHmm. A bit vague, that, as an explanation. I'm still unsure you understand the argument. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:43 pmOf course not, if I interpret it correctly, we are talking about mere possibility here.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:28 pmOK, so, for the 2nd argument, you don't think that the argument is made invalid by the fact that the part of B in premise 1 and the part of B in premise 2 are not necessarily the same?
"C - Therefore, for all we know, what C does may be determined by A."
In other words: it's possible that what C does is determined by A. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
EB
Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments
I am entirely ignoring your use of 'state' to parse your argument.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:02 pm Since there isn't much else to understand, so, suddenly you can understand the argument?!
So you accept the argument is valid, or is it still somehow nonsense?
The state of B can be coincidental not incidental to C. Correlation is not causation etc.
If the state of B is red (as in the colour) I would hesitate to conclude that what C does is caused by red.