Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:29 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:16 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:27 pm
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.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:27 pm 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.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:16 pm 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.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:02 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:34 pm 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

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:44 pm The second argument is valid. So what?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:44 pm The second argument is valid. So what?

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

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:49 am Both arguments are valid.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:49 am 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

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:27 pm So it seems for now that the "not valid" have it by 3 to 2.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:00 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:27 pm 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.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:00 amEmpirical evidence suggests you're more likely to change your vote to piss me off than for any rational reason.
EB

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:17 am (...)