Poll on the validity of two arguments

[Arising_uk]

This is a poll on the validity of the two following arguments.

1st argument

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

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.

...

Thanks,
EB

Well all the 'for all we know's' and 'may's' are basically 'if...then's', so the premises of the 1st argument can be formulated as,
P1. if B then A
P2. if B then C
Therefore if A then C

As such by using a truth table the argument is invalid as there is a case where the the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Since you say the 2nd argument is essentially the same as the 1st I guess it'd be invalid too.

[Speakpigeon]

Well all the 'for all we know's' and 'may's' are basically 'if...then's', so the premises of the 1st argument can be formulated as,
P1. if B then A
P2. if B then C
Therefore if A then C

As such by using a truth table the argument is invalid as there is a case where the the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Since you say the 2nd argument is essentially the same as the 1st I guess it'd be invalid too.

No, A may be B isn't the same as if B then A.
And C may be B isn't the same as if B then C.
And C may be A isn't the same as if A then C.
EB

[Age]

speakpigeon,

Just curious, are you waiting for everyone, or most, to vote and say that both arguments are valid before you move on to doing what you intended this thread for?

If yes, then what else could we do for you to move on earlier?
If no, then what is the actual purpose for this thread?

[Arising_uk]

No, A may be B isn't the same as if B then A.
And C may be B isn't the same as if B then C.
And C may be A isn't the same as if A then C.
EB

Yes they are as you didn't say A 'may be' B but A 'may be the state' of B and a 'state' of B is not the same as being the B so effectively you are saying there are two things hence the relation can be formalised as 'if B then A' which applies to the rest of your premises and a truth table analysis shows your argument to be invalid.

[Logik]

Yes they are as you didn't say A 'may be' B but A 'may be the state' of B and a 'state' of B is not the same as being the B so effectively you are saying there are two things hence the relation can be formalised as 'if B then A' which applies to the rest of your premises and a truth table analysis shows your argument to be invalid.

Well, technically he hasn't provided a truth table.

I asked. At least 5 or 6 times. Nothing has been provided so far - only half-witty retorts.

So I have ample evidence to accuse him of obscurantism.

[Speakpigeon]

speakpigeon,

Just curious, are you waiting for everyone, or most, to vote and say that both arguments are valid before you move on to doing what you intended this thread for?

If yes, then what else could we do for you to move on earlier?
If no, then what is the actual purpose for this thread?

I believe I already replied to a similar request from you.
This thread is defined by its first post. That's all there is to it.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

so effectively you are saying there are two things hence the relation can be formalised as 'if B then A'

No.
What I said is the following:
1st argument.

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

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.

If you can't read properly, not my problem.
EB

[Atla]

so effectively you are saying there are two things hence the relation can be formalised as 'if B then A'

No.
What I said is the following:
1st argument.

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

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.

If you can't read properly, not my problem.
EB

Why did you choose such a confusing/misleading wording for your arguments by the way? Does it serve some purpose, or do you not see any problem with it?

[Speakpigeon]

Why did you choose such a confusing/misleading wording for your arguments by the way? Does it serve some purpose, or do you not see any problem with it?

I don't see what would be confusing but it is up to you if you want to elaborate on that. I don't think there's any clearer wording or phasing. Maybe you could give a few examples of modal arguments that would be less confusing.
Here is an example. It's a modal argument in favour of Dualism:

1. It is imaginable that one's mind might exist without one's body.
2. Therefore, it is conceivable that one's mind might exist without one's body.
3. Therefore, it is possible one's mind might exist without one's body.
4. Therefore, one's mind is a different entity from one's body.

Is that clearer?
Or, Plantinga's logical argument for mind-body dualism:

1. If A and B are identical then any statement of A is true of B and vice versa.
2. I can imagine existing without my body, for example in the body of a bird. I cannot imagine my body existing without my body.
3. By (2) we showed the existence of a statement that is true of (me) but not true of my (body).
4. By (1) my body and me are not identical.

Is that clearer?
Or this one from Penrose:

We try to suppose that the totality of methods of (unassailable) mathematical reasoning that are in principle humanly accessible can be encapsulated in some (not necessarily computational) sound formal system F. A human mathematician, if presented with F, could argue as follows (bearing in mind that the phrase “I am F” is merely a shorthand for “F encapsulates all the humanly accessible methods of mathematical proof”):
“Though I don’t know that I necessarily am F, I conclude that if I were, then the system F would have to be sound and, more to the point, F2 would have to be sound, where F2 is F supplemented by the further assertion “I am F.” I perceive that it follows from the assumption that I am F that the Gödel statement G(F2) would have to be true and, furthermore, that it would not be a consequence of F2. But I have just perceived that “If I happened to be F, then G(F2) would have to be true,” and perceptions of this nature would be precisely what F2 is supposed to achieve. Since I am therefore capable of perceiving something beyond the powers of F2, I deduce that I cannot be F after all. Moreover, this applies to any other (Gödelizable) system, in place of F.” (Penrose)

Apparently not a sound argument, but surely valid.
EB

[Logik]

I don't see what would be confusing but it is up to you if you want to elaborate on that.

I don't see why you can't see that we can all see that your grammar and semantics are ambiguous.

I keep asking you for a truth-table and you keep asking for an elaboration of what I don't understand.
What I don't understand is your grammar and semantics. Is this not elaborate enough?

I don't see what would be confusing about a about a truth-table request.

[Atla]

I don't see what would be confusing but it is up to you if you want to elaborate on that. I don't think there's any clearer wording or phasing. Maybe you could give a few examples of modal arguments that would be less confusing.
Here is an example. It's a modal argument in favour of Dualism:

1. It is imaginable that one's mind might exist without one's body.
2. Therefore, it is conceivable that one's mind might exist without one's body.
3. Therefore, it is possible one's mind might exist without one's body.
4. Therefore, one's mind is a different entity from one's body.

Is that clearer?
Or, Plantinga's logical argument for mind-body dualism:

1. If A and B are identical then any statement of A is true of B and vice versa.
2. I can imagine existing without my body, for example in the body of a bird. I cannot imagine my body existing without my body.
3. By (2) we showed the existence of a statement that is true of (me) but not true of my (body).
4. By (1) my body and me are not identical.

Is that clearer?

Yes, these are much clearer (to me at least), no "for all we know" / "state" / "determined" / "does" / "may be" confusion, much clearer structure.
It's easy to tell that these arguments are totally invalid. Well yeah, the second one is really trying hard to cheat its way through.

Or this one from Penrose:

We try to suppose that the totality of methods of (unassailable) mathematical reasoning that are in principle humanly accessible can be encapsulated in some (not necessarily computational) sound formal system F. A human mathematician, if presented with F, could argue as follows (bearing in mind that the phrase “I am F” is merely a shorthand for “F encapsulates all the humanly accessible methods of mathematical proof”):
“Though I don’t know that I necessarily am F, I conclude that if I were, then the system F would have to be sound and, more to the point, F2 would have to be sound, where F2 is F supplemented by the further assertion “I am F.” I perceive that it follows from the assumption that I am F that the Gödel statement G(F2) would have to be true and, furthermore, that it would not be a consequence of F2. But I have just perceived that “If I happened to be F, then G(F2) would have to be true,” and perceptions of this nature would be precisely what F2 is supposed to achieve. Since I am therefore capable of perceiving something beyond the powers of F2, I deduce that I cannot be F after all. Moreover, this applies to any other (Gödelizable) system, in place of F.” (Penrose)

Apparently not a sound argument, but surely valid.
EB

I couldn't really follow this one, seems to be invalid as well to me, F is concrete and F2 is a mix of concrete and abstract (the added element has one more abstraction layer, leading to nonsense)? Well, could be valid depending on what we consider a mathematical proof, I guess. Is "I am F" really a mathematical proof? Nah scratch that, I really can't make sense of the argument.

[Age]

speakpigeon,

Just curious, are you waiting for everyone, or most, to vote and say that both arguments are valid before you move on to doing what you intended this thread for?

If yes, then what else could we do for you to move on earlier?
If no, then what is the actual purpose for this thread?

I believe I already replied to a similar request from you.

You are free to believe whatever you like. But I still do not know whether your answer will be a yes or a no.

This thread is defined by its first post. That's all there is to it.
EB

If this thread is defined by its first post, then just about any argument that starts with "As far as 'we' know" could be taken as being valid or invalid. The CORRECT answer is depended SOLELY upon on who/what is the 'we' you are referring to?

Until that is made KNOWN how could any one really respond accurately?

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is defined by its first post. That's all there is to it.
EB

If this thread is defined by its first post, then just about any argument that starts with "As far as 'we' know" could be taken as being valid or invalid.

???
Are you sure of that?!
Look at this argument:

As far as we know, water is H2O;
Ice is frozen water;
Therefore, Trump is H2O and Vladimir Putin is water.

You say that is valid?!
Whoa.

The CORRECT answer is depended SOLELY upon on who/what is the 'we' you are referring to?

Sure. If you don't know who we are then I'm not sure who I am and even who you are.
And then there's no need to post anything here or indeed anywhere.

Until that is made KNOWN how could any one really respond accurately?

Supposed it is "made known", would we really know it, though?
We're not discussing soundness here but validity.
So, whether there is a "we" and whether it knows anything is completely irrelevant. Just assume it does, using the usual definitions of the words used in the argument as can be found in any English dictionary.
EB

[Logik]

So, whether there is a "we" and whether it knows anything is completely irrelevant. Just assume it does, using the usual definitions of the words used in the argument as can be found in any English dictionary.
EB

So the purpose of this entire thread is to determine how people interpret words defined in the English dictionary?

You could have just asked "How do you interpret may?"

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, these are much clearer (to me at least), no "for all we know" / "state" / "determined" / "does" / "may be" confusion, much clearer structure.
It's easy to tell that these arguments are totally invalid. Well yeah, the second one is really trying hard to cheat its way through.
I couldn't really follow this one, seems to be invalid as well to me, F is concrete and F2 is a mix of concrete and abstract (the added element has one more abstraction layer, leading to nonsense)? Well, could be valid depending on what we consider a mathematical proof, I guess. Is "I am F" really a mathematical proof? Nah scratch that, I really can't make sense of the argument.

OK, maybe my arguments are hard to process, but they are what they are and I couldn't make them easier to read.
Still, you're welcome to offer an easier formulation.
I tried my best to make them formally valid, so on this account I'm doing better than the three people I quoted.
EB