# Poll on validity of an argument

## Is the argument valid?

• ### I don't know

• Total voters
6
• Poll closed .

#### Speakpigeon

Valued Senior Member
This thread is a poll on a logical argument.

Thank you to vote before posting any comment on the argument (you can change your vote if need be).

Here is the logical argument:

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

Is the argument valid?
EB

This thread is a poll on a logical argument.

Thank you to vote before posting any comment on the argument (you can change your vote if need be).

Here is the logical argument:

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

Is the argument valid?
EB

algebra
mathematical logic is applied.
mathematical logic is the nature of Newtonian(most recent) adaptation of methodology of the laws of calculus ?
(thats just a rough memory from some conversations with folk vastly more intelligent than i.)
because the language of the formula is accurate to the law of the principal then the logic holds as a functionary process.
to go much past that into mathematics.. you will need to get an opinion from a mathematician or philosophy professor.
im hopeless at algebra & calculus so i cant give you a scientific answer.

I thought it was pretty straight forward.

This thread is a poll on a logical argument.

Thank you to vote before posting any comment on the argument (you can change your vote if need be).

Here is the logical argument:

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

Is the argument valid?
EB
Sure. So?

algebra
mathematical logic is applied.
mathematical logic is the nature of Newtonian(most recent) adaptation of methodology of the laws of calculus ?
(thats just a rough memory from some conversations with folk vastly more intelligent than i.)
because the language of the formula is accurate to the law of the principal then the logic holds as a functionary process.
This argument is couched in ordinary language. I'm asking whether you think it is valid on the face of it. So, there's no need to go into mathematical logic and in fact, I would rather that nobody does that because I'm pretty sure it is worthless. The sole guarantor of the validity of an argument seems for now at least to be our own personal intuition and consensus among reasonable people. Nothing quite absolute, then.
to go much past that into mathematics.. you will need to get an opinion from a mathematician or philosophy professor.
That's what I do but I still value my own intuition more and that of other people more and I think that's what intuitions and consensus are there for.
im hopeless at algebra & calculus so i cant give you a scientific answer.
EB

the determinant value is singular
this poses its own sense of completeness which negates from a point of consideration.
e.g "look at the tree! is it not a tree? tell me if you think that is true?"

thus to offer consideration of a 'non-considerable' assigning it to "intuition" seems somewhat coded to a pre defined construct.
"consensus" is culture/is pre-defined & devoid of independent reason.

one could argue the notion of consideration to be void by the asking of the question

the equative sense of the nature of the application is non aligned
it has only 1 direction
A is open
C is open
B is the only known function as a direct force upon C

my intuition tells me your question is an example of a different subject which you wish to explore as a process of interactive reason as a debate process.
sociological discussion of applied terms of debate nature.

consensus is irreverent unless you have already decided to change your opinion on what you 1st thought,
yet judgement OF consensus requiring change is almost an oxymoron for such a position.

I'm sure the syllogism is valid in some modal logic or other.
I note it is also different to your previous attempts at this, as you have now strengthened the reference to B to being a singular thing rather than being reference to a single example from a larger set.
Your previous efforts therefore suffered from imprecision and thus equivocation whereas the effort here does not.
Although that in itself would not alter the validity, only the worth of the syllogism.

Query: why are you raising so many threads on the same question?
This is your third, is it not?

Of course it's valid - as a form.
As to content: "For all we know" is not an argument.

I'm sure the syllogism is valid in some modal logic or other.
I note it is also different to your previous attempts at this, as you have now strengthened the reference to B to being a singular thing rather than being reference to a single example from a larger set.
Your previous efforts therefore suffered from imprecision and thus equivocation whereas the effort here does not.
Although that in itself would not alter the validity, only the worth of the syllogism.

Query: why are you raising so many threads on the same question?
This is your third, is it not?
Please vote. I'll respond after you have.
EB

Of course it's valid - as a form.
As to content: "For all we know" is not an argument.
EB

I have.

You've said the argument is valid and you voted that it doesn't make sense even though the question is as to validity.
EB

You've said the argument is valid and you voted that it doesn't make sense even though the question is as to validity.
EB
I said the form is valid and the argument makes no sense.

I said the form is valid and the argument makes no sense.
Then, please explain what you think doesn't make sense.
EB

Then, please explain what you think doesn't make sense.
EB
I did that, too.
We can now formulate a semantic structure,
For all we know, God may occupy pumpkins and the Amish may be his chosen people,
The Pennsylvania Amish provide pumpkins for their god to occupy.
Therefore, God lives in a Pennsylvania pumpkin patch...
...for all we know.

Yeah, there's a couple of assumptions inherent in the argument:
That A, B and/or C exist.

That usually goes without saying in such logic problems. Simply by invoking them we must grant they exist.
But if there is a question of any of them existing in the first place, the logic falls apart - as Jeeves points out.

So, IMO this logical argument is poorly formed, in that it is ambiguous.

It is astarrement of uncertainty. An uncertainty that actually isn't argued.