Poll on the validity of two arguments

[Speakpigeon]

Well, I did that already. But you just rewrote it to suit yourself and asked me if I understood.

I didn't rewrite your argument. Your argument was irrelevant because it didn't have the same logical form as my argument.
So, I didn't rewrite your argument, I offered you another argument based on your example but this time with the same logical form as my initial argument, and this to help you see that it was valid.

P1 - For all we know, Green may be the state of one of the three lamps in the traffic light.
P2 - If the light is Red, the cop will issue a citation.
C - Therefore, for all we know, the citation may be determined by green.

Sorry, your argument here again is irrelevant because the logical form is not the same. The second premise here is different from the second premise in my argument with the traffic light. So, this is irrelevant to my argument.
You claimed that my argument can support a self-contradictory conclusion. So, first you need to start from exactly the same premises as that of my argument on the traffic light, and then you need to exhibit the "self-contradictory conclusion" you have alluded to. And we will see if it follows from my premises as you claimed.
EB

But I don't need to follow your traffic light argument. I need to stay within the confines of this argument. The one that is actually in question.
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.

So if A is Green, B is the traffic light system. C is the traffic cop and his actions are determined by another part of the traffic light system. Then I have followed the structure and jumping a green light may cause a driving citation.

Then, write the resulting argument properly, in full. As I said, your previous attempt was irrelevant because it didn't have the same logical form as my own argument.
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a very cheap remote control toy car(C). It can start, it can stop and it can continue.
It has a dial with Start at one end, Stop at the other(A2), and neutral space between.


For all we know, Stop may be the state of the dial
C is started by the dial.
Therefore, for all we know C may be started by stop.

[Speakpigeon]

There is a very cheap remote control toy car(C). It can start, it can stop and it can continue.
It has a dial with Start at one end, Stop at the other(A2), and neutral space between.


For all we know, Stop may be the state of the dial
C is started by the dial.
Therefore, for all we know C may be started by stop.

Nothing like the original argument.
EB

[FlashDangerpants]

I guess I was overcome by my distaste for arguments that do nothing at all. But, I suppose I should accept that by doing nothing they take little risk of being wrong.

[Speakpigeon]

I guess I was overcome by my distaste for arguments that do nothing at all. But, I suppose I should accept that by doing nothing they take little risk of being wrong.

Good point.
EB

[Age]

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.

The first one is more simple but their logical structure is partially the same.

Comments are welcome, but please try to answer the poll before posting any comment.

Two answers overall, but one answer only for each argument. And you will be able to change your vote later if you want.

Thanks,
EB

The second argument is valid. So what?

[Speakpigeon]

The second argument is valid. So what?

The second but not the first?!
Are you sure?
EB

[Age]

The second argument is valid. So what?

The second but not the first?!
Are you sure?
EB

Both arguments are valid.

[Speakpigeon]

Both arguments are valid.

Ah, good.
I hope you're aware that many people disagree as to the validity of the second argument.
A few talk of "undistributed middle", a few others produce some counterexample and claim that it effectively invalidates the argument. This seems to be uncharted territory, so feel free to change your vote (if at all possible here), and short of that, to put a new comment to that effect.
Thanks for expressing your view here.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

So it seems for now that the "valid" have it by 3 to 2. Come on guys, wake up!
EB

[Age]

Both arguments are valid.

Ah, good.
I hope you're aware that many people disagree as to the validity of the second argument.
A few talk of "undistributed middle", a few others produce some counterexample and claim that it effectively invalidates the argument. This seems to be uncharted territory, so feel free to change your vote (if at all possible here), and short of that, to put a new comment to that effect.
Thanks for expressing your view here.
EB

Okay, both are invalid.

[Age]

So it seems for now that the "not valid" have it by 3 to 2.

[Speakpigeon]

So it seems for now that the "not valid" have it by 3 to 2.

Not in my book until you articulate good reasons to assess the two arguments as invalid.
Empirical evidence suggests you're more likely to change your vote to piss me off than for any rational reason.
EB

[Age]

So it seems for now that the "not valid" have it by 3 to 2.

Not in my book until you articulate good reasons to assess the two arguments as invalid.

But why not in your book?

If you look at the results, when you wrote your response here, the "not valid", to the "valid", did have it by 3 to 2. What book are you looking at?

Empirical evidence suggests you're more likely to change your vote to piss me off than for any rational reason.
EB

What so called "empirical evidence" do you have for this remark?

I NEVER changed my vote to piss you off at all. I changed my vote because you wrote:
so feel free to change your vote (if at all possible here),

So, I tested it out to see if I could change my vote. It was possible so I did. Another rational reason I changed my vote was because you said "feel free to change to your vote", so I did.

You also wrote:
and short of that, to put a new comment to that effect.

I also did what you said here. I commented on how it was 3 to 2, the other way around, now.

[Speakpigeon]

(...)

And all excellent, too.
EB