Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that An argument is sound when it is both valid and has true premises
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Soundness requires not merely true premises but premises known to be true, as Sextus Empiricus argued against dogmatic claims of propositional certainty.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A valid argument with accidentally true premises yields no genuine epistemic justification, making 'soundness' epistemically hollow without a knowledge condition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The Stoic criterion of a 'correct' conditional (sunartêsis) already embeds a modal constraint that truth alone cannot satisfy, per Diodorus Cronus's Master Argument.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If validity depends on strict modal connection between antecedent and consequent, then truth of premises is insufficient for soundness without necessity of those truths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An argument is valid if its corresponding Chrysippean conditional is correct
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An argument is sound only if it additionally has true premises
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.