## Poll on the validity of two arguments

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

## Are these two arguments valid?

1st argument - Valid
4
25%
1st argument - Not valid
3
19%
1st argument - I don't know
1
6%
1st argument - The argument doesn't make sense
1
6%
2nd argument - Valid
4
25%
2nd argument - Not valid
3
19%
2nd argument - I don't know
0
No votes
2nd argument - The argument doesn't make sense
0
No votes

Total votes: 16

Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:37 am
Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmThis is the most ironical comment I've read in a while.
You're welcome.
Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmYou've described in detail how we can interpret "state" in at least a dozen different ways,

No.
Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmand that you really fail to grasp that state is just an abstraction,

What isn't?
Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmat least when you are using it in a formal logic argument. That's my point.
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
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.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

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.
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.
Last edited by Atla on Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

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.
Very funny, but this trick won't work. "Cow" is concrete.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 pm You asked if the argument is valid. In order to assert validity one must first establish grammar and semantics.
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.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 pm1. I voted.
Good. The only one to vote "valid", I will guess.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 pm2. How would you go about establishing the validity of an argument you cannot parse?
I didn't ask for "establishing". Only whether the argument was valid.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 pmSo my attempt to get you to clarify your semantics and grammar is a derail?
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.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 pm
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.
It is exceptionally coherent and relevant. If you understand the theory.
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 pmYou do understand what the word 'parsing' means, right? Reading your argument does not mean I can PARSE its meaning. If I can't parse its meaning, then I can't establish its validity.
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

Atla wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:18 pm
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.
Very funny, but this trick won't work. "Cow" is concrete.
Prove it.
What concrete thing is "cow"?
Apart from an instance of the word "cow".
EB
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 pm I didn't ask for "establishing". Only whether the argument was valid.
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 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.
You know like when you said 'cow' Is abstract until it applies to any particular cow?

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.
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.
Articulation is distinct from comprehension.
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.
I can't reformalize an argument I don't understand any more than you can translate the sentence "Urgen lightman es shmurgen."
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:35 pm 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.
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
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:28 pm
Atla wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:35 pm 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.
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
Of course not, if I interpret it correctly, we are talking about mere possibility here.
"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.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

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
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

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

Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:24 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 pm I didn't ask for "establishing". Only whether the argument was valid.
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.
OK, I guess that was Lesson 1.
I'll be waiting for Lesson 2.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:24 pm You know like when you said 'cow' Is abstract until it applies to any particular cow?
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.
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.
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 pmI can't reformalize an argument I don't understand
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

Atla wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:43 pm
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?
Of course not, if I interpret it correctly, we are talking about mere possibility here.
"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.
Hmm. A bit vague, that, as an explanation. I'm still unsure you understand the argument. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.
EB
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2634
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:16 pm
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.
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.
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.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:43 pm
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
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

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.
OK, good, excellent, you're the King of Logic.
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
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:52 pm
Atla wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:43 pm
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?
Of course not, if I interpret it correctly, we are talking about mere possibility here.
"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.
Hmm. A bit vague, that, as an explanation. I'm still unsure you understand the argument. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.
EB
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.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

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?
I am entirely ignoring your use of 'state' to parse your argument.

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.