-->
@secularmerlin
No they are not. Validity refers to the structure of an argument
Yes they are. If validity refers to the structure of an argument then what does invalidity refer to?
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@Tarik
An argument with premises that lead logically to the conclusion is a valid argument. An argument with premises that do not make the conclusion a logical necessity is invalid.
This is different from a sound argument (a valid argument whose premises are accepted as true)
-->
@secularmerlin
https://www.lexico.com/definition/sound
Under the second definition for adjectives you can see the synonyms.
-->
@Tarik
Colloquially that would be acceptable but this context necessarily requires two terms. All sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.
Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true
Sound: a sound argument is an argument that is both valid, and all of whose premises are true.
Source Google
-->
@secularmerlin
Your wrong on so many levels, first of all, all sound arguments are valid AND all valid arguments are sound. Second those definitions just like the words are synonymous. Third any novice can say Google but unless you cite the source it means nothing, although I have no qualms with that definition. Fourth, all I said was those words were synonymous and now you want to add extra variables to the equation because you can’t handle the fact that your wrong once again. Lastly, you conceded dude end of story.
-->
@Tarik
Google definitions. Your suggested source.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well Google didn’t use those definitions you provided.
I'm not sure what to tell you. I am informing you how I am using them.
-->
@secularmerlin
And I am informing you before you accuse me of not knowing the differences between terms (even though they’re synonymous) maybe you should get your facts straight and utilize the internet because by the looks of it you don’t have the slightest clue.
In the context of debate there is a very specific definition of valid and sound. Moreover I have supplied a definition which is specific. If you understand my definitions and if they facilitate the conversation the only reason to object to their use for our purposes is because YOU don't actually want to have any conversation at all. Particularly since this is our second seperate conversation and your behavior is not improved I am going to assume any refusal of my specific definitions as you wishing to discontinue our conversation. When you are ready to compromise in the interest of having intelligible discussion let me know. Any other response will be received as an invitation to stop responding.
-->
@secularmerlin
Moreover I have supplied a definition which is specific.
So have I, and unlike yours it’s supported through the dictionary.
If you understand my definitions
If your definitions contrasts valid and sound then there’s nothing to understand because your definitions are wrong period.
your behavior is not improved I am going to assume any refusal of my specific definitions as you wishing to discontinue our conversation.
In regards to this discussion I don’t need to improve a damn thing, you’re the one that conceded which is an improvement on your end, and you can assume all you want but you know what they say when you assume.
When you are ready to compromise
I don’t have to compromise when I’m right, you being wrong as much as you are it’s understandable why compromise is your goal. Lastly I don’t care if you respond or not, you still conceded at the end of the day and that’s good enough for me ✌🏾 .
-->
@Tarik
first of all, all sound arguments are valid AND all valid arguments are sound.
Not true, A sound argument is necessarily valid, but a valid argument need not be sound. The argument form that derives every A is a C from the premises every A is a B and every B is a C, is valid, so every instance of it is a valid argument. ... Note that an unsound argument may have a true or a false conclusion.
-->
@FLRW
Note that an unsound argument may have a true or a false conclusion.
...So? I said nothing about a conclusion only the argument, you’re conflating a separate narrative, and on a last note an invalid argument may also have a true or false conclusion so you’ve failed to make a point in terms of differentiating the two.
-->
@Tarik
An argument is a discourse one bases upon something that one assumes is conclusive. Ergo, also assumed to be a sound argument.
Nonetheless:
Whether said argument is or can be proven to relate to a factual conclusion, is a separate issue.
So if said argument relates to something that is unprovable or unknowable, an existent God or an objective morality for example. Then all arguments are actually unsound, irrespective of what may or may not be conclusive.
In these circumstances any sincere argument is valid but not sound. Nonetheless that does not imply that an argument in itself is not reasonable, and in this respect sound.
Such is the variability of how we define and utilise the word "sound".....The inherent contradictions of the English language as it were.
-->
@zedvictor4
So if said argument relates to something that is unprovable or unknowable, an existent God or an objective morality for example.
How do you know this?
Then all arguments are actually unsound, irrespective of what may or may not be conclusive.
This makes no sense, conclusive arguments are also sound arguments.
In these circumstances any sincere argument is valid but not sound. Nonetheless that does not imply that an argument in itself is not reasonable, and in this respect sound.
You just contradicted one minute you say “but not sound” and in the next breath you say “in this respect sound” which one is it?
-->
@FLRW
Not true, A sound argument is necessarily valid, but a valid argument need not be sound. The argument form that derives every A is a C from the premises every A is a B and every B is a C, is valid, so every instance of it is a valid argument. ... Note that an unsound argument may have a true or a false conclusion.
Well stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
An argument is a discourse one bases upon something that one assumes is conclusive. Ergo, also assumed to be a sound argument.Nonetheless:Whether said argument is or can be proven to relate to a factual conclusion, is a separate issue.So if said argument relates to something that is unprovable or unknowable, an existent God or an objective morality for example. Then all arguments are actually unsound, irrespective of what may or may not be conclusive.In these circumstances any sincere argument is valid but not sound. Nonetheless that does not imply that an argument in itself is not reasonable, and in this respect sound.Such is the variability of how we define and utilise the word "sound".....The inherent contradictions of the English language as it were.
Good point.
Echoing over the waters of the sound was the sound of sailors sounding the depths from the deck of their sound little boat.
In English one word may have many meanings.
-->
@Tarik
all sound arguments are valid AND all valid arguments are sound.
All sound arguments MUST be valid.
But not all valid arguments are sound.
A valid argument that is not sound,
(IFF) all dogs are blue (AND) you have a dog (THEN) your dog is blue
This is a VALID argument.
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).
-->
@3RU7AL
All sound arguments MUST be valid.But not all valid arguments are sound.A valid argument that is not sound,(IFF) all dogs are blue (AND) you have a dog (THEN) your dog is blueThis is a VALID argument.This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).
What's more is we don't actually have to use the words valid and sound but absent of some nomenclature to distinguish an argument with logically necessary conclusions that are nevertheless not true our conversation becomes an exercise in frustration.
-->
@secularmerlin
Just imagine if you lived in a world where you thought every valid argument was true.
-->
@3RU7AL
I would then be forced to simultaneously believe many contradictory and or mutually exclusive propositions. The cognitive dissonance might be physically painful.
-->
@3RU7AL
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).
It’s true under those circumstances.
-->
@3RU7AL
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).It’s true under those circumstances.
Would you agree that this more or less sums up why this argument is valid but not sound?
-->
@secularmerlin
Assuming that was for me, the answer is no. I said it before and I’ll say it again valid and sound are synonymous.
-->
@Tarik
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).It’s true under those circumstances.
It's a hypothetical statement.
It's only "true" in the context of the hypothetical.
It is NOT true outside the context of the hypothetical.
-->
@3RU7AL
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).It’s true under those circumstances.It's a hypothetical statement.It's only "true" in the context of the hypothetical.It is NOT true outside the context of the hypothetical.
Well stated. You could even say that
VALID=TRUE EVEN IF ONLY HYPOTHETICALLY
SOUND=TRUE ONLY IF ACTUALLY TRUE HYPOTHETICALS NOT WITHSTANDING
-->
@Tarik
Assuming that was for me
It was not so don't trouble yourself.
-->
@3RU7AL
It's only "true" in the context of the hypothetical.
Ergo “under those circumstances”.
-->
@secularmerlin
It was not so don't trouble yourself.
...🤔 That’s funny because last time that I checked 3RU7AL never said
It’s true under those circumstances.
I however did, so I find it interesting how I can live in your head rent free to the point of quoting me when addressing someone else, 😂 you say don’t trouble yourself but apparently I was worth the trouble of being quoted.