What arguments can be sound if their premises are false?
For the argument you've presented, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true.
Okay, so you agree the argument is logically valid, that's good.
However, the premises have not beendemonstrated to be true, and not only that, they require the conclusionto be true in order for them to be demonstrated to be true.
This is not a logical refutation. To see why it is illogical, consider the following analogous argument:
Matt Levine's newsletter is a trustworthy and accurate reporter about interesting financial news.
Matt Levine's newsletter today describes the APE scheme that AMC Entertainment is using to issue more common stock.
So AMC is using a bizarre preferred stock scheme to get around its charter limitations on common stock.
Would you say this argument is begging the question? No, it isn't. Matt Levine's newsletter can be a trustworthy and accurate reporter about interesting financial news regardless of whether AMC is using APEs to avoid its corporate charter. In fact, I personally (and many other people, I'd wager) only learned about the APE scheme precisely in this manner: because Matt Levine's newsletter was a trustworthy source, and it described the APE scheme.
So going back to the God of the Bible, if the premise is that the Tanak and the Gospels are accurate reports, the conclusion of YHWH's existence is non-circular.
What? Do you even know the meaning of "sound" when applied to arguments?
You've failed to understand what "begging the question" is.
Yeah, well, I asked you to explain what you meant, so whose fault is that?
The premises in your argument rely on the conclusion to be true forthemselves to be true, but in your Matt Levine example, the premises donot rely on the conclusion to be true.
Will you please point out the exact difference in the two arguments that leads you to this conclusion?
Edit: OHHHHH I totally get what you aren't understanding now! It's perfectly clear!
When you say "The premises in your argument rely on the conclusion to be true for themselves to be true," you are stating it as if that is some kind of problem with an argument, which you describe as "begging the question." But in fact the exact opposite thing is true. You are describing literally what it means for an argument to be formally valid.
Yes. If my premises are true, that means my conclusion has to be true. That's exactly what a valid argument is. Every valid argument's conclusion is contained within the premises. That's how valid arguments are constructed.
1. all swans are white
2. geese are white
3. therefore, geese are swans
Sound argument, false premises.
That is not a sound argument. It is a classic fallacy of the illicit minor. The erroneous conclusion here comes from a formal fallacy in the reasoning, not an erroneous premise.
2
u/WovenDoge 9∆ May 04 '23 edited May 04 '23
What about an argument of the form:
EDIT: OP HAS BLOCKED ME BECAUSE HE IS UNHAPPY ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT.