No need for gimmicks. All you have to do is prove the argument not valid.
For all you know, I may be waiting for you.
EB
Of course. I am happy to oblige.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:34 pmNo need for gimmicks. All you have to do is prove the argument not valid.
For all you know, I may be waiting for you.
EB
P.S I do insist on the $100 - for my sake, more than yours.Each logical system comes with both a syntactic component, which among other things determines the notion of provability, and a semantic component, which determines the notion of logical validity.
Since there are no probabilities in "may" then I guess there is no semantic distinction between:Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:32 pmThere's no probability in "may". And yet we do it.
There are no probabilities in the logical truth that A and A implies B therefore B and yet we do it.
Seems we having a hard time deciding whether the argument is valid or invalid. I wonder why?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:49 pmNo need for gimmicks.
All you have to do is prove the argument not valid.
EB
I notice you haven’t furnished a truth-table for the semantics of "MAY" yet. This makes it difficult to determine the validity of your argument. One may just accuse you of obscuring the truth.Each logical system comes with both a syntactic component, which among other things determines the notion of provability, and a semantic component, which determines the notion of logical validity.
Because those aren't arguments, they're just a pair of statements that C might or might not have something to do with A.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:18 pmSeems we having a hard time deciding whether the argument is valid or invalid. I wonder why?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:49 pmNo need for gimmicks.
All you have to do is prove the argument not valid.
EB
Well, either the argument is valid or it isn't. It's definitely not a question of probability. May be you're unsure, but "probably" isn't the proper word in this case.
I don't see where "chance" could come.So, if you could try to pinpoint for me what in the argument would introduce a factor chance.
EBP1 - 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.
To be honest I simply see the argument as a tautology. A and B are subsets of X. Is A = B possible? Yes, end of story.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:08 amOK, thanks, that's it, and I think that's the best way to articulate the idea.
There is one remaining issue, though. Given what you just explained here, with which I fully agree, how do you prove validity in this case? How do you prove that the conclusion cannot be false if we assume both premises as true? Are we supposed to recognise you as the Oracle of Validity, or is there a method to prove that kind of arguments?
EB
This is not a classic argument.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:40 pmWell, either the argument is valid or it isn't. It's definitely not a question of probability. May be you're unsure, but "probably" isn't the proper word in this case.
You used "may" in P1. The chance comes from there. If you replace may be with certainly is then the argument is valid. If you replace may be with impossibly is then your argument is invalid. May sites somewhere between certainly and impossibly.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:40 pmI don't see where "chance" could come.So, if you could try to pinpoint for me what in the argument would introduce a factor chance.
Reminder (2nd argument)EBP1 - 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.
Well, yes. OK.Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:02 pmTo be honest I simply see the argument as a tautology. A and B are subsets of X. Is A = B possible? Yes, end of story.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:08 amHow do you prove that the conclusion cannot be false if we assume both premises as true? Are we supposed to recognise you as the Oracle of Validity, or is there a method to prove that kind of arguments?
EB
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:18 pmWell, yes. OK.
Still, it seems curious to me that our science computer loud spoke-person here should have no ready method for dealing with such a simple argument you and me find just so obviously valid. Isn't that curious?
EB
No, it isn't but it's not a complicated argument. You only need to take once difficulty at a time.
"May" isn't about "chance", it's about knowledge and uncertainty, as signalled by the phrase "For all we know".bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:03 pmYou used "may" in P1. The chance comes from there. If you replace may be with certainly is then the argument is valid. If you replace may be with impossibly is then your argument is invalid. May sites somewhere between certainly and impossibly.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:40 pmI don't see where "chance" could come.So, if you could try to pinpoint for me what in the argument would introduce a factor chance.
Since you appear to be exercising Cunningham's law...Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:44 pm"May" isn't about "chance", it's about knowledge and uncertainty, as signalled by the phrase "For all we know".
Measurement of uncertainty
A set of possible states or outcomes where probabilities are assigned to each possible state or outcome – this also includes the application of a probability density function to continuous variables.[2]
Users browsing this forum: Univalence and 2 guests