1.

4 Validity, Truth,
Soundness,
Strength,
Cogency

1. : having legal efficacy or force; especially :

executed with the proper legal authority and
formalities <a valid contract>
2. a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once
relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>

Validity

b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid

inference>
3. : appropriate to the end in view : effective
<every craft has its own valid methods>
4. of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles
of sound biological classification
validity noun
validly adverb

a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body
of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often
capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual
reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or
accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>

Truth

c : the body of true statements and propositions

3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in
accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : true 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized Christian Science : god
in truth
: in accordance with fact : actually

Soundness

1. the ability to withstand force or

stress without being distorted,
dislodged, or damaged<the car
manufacturer tested
thesoundnessof the new model in
various types of collisions>
2. the condition of being sound in
body<his athleticsoundnesscis
open to question since he's been
away from the sport for so long>

: the quality or state of being

physically strong

Strength

: the ability to resist being moved

or broken by a force
: the quality that allows someone
to deal with problems in a
determined and effective way

noun

Cogency

the quality of being clear, logical,

and convincing; lucidity.
"the cogency of this argument"

This section introduces the central

ideas and terminology required to
evaluate arguments.
We have seen that every
argument makes two basic claims:

The first
is a factual
claim, the
second an
inferential
claim.

1. a claim that evidence or

reasons exist
2. and a claim that the alleged
evidence or reasons support
something (or that something
follows from the alleged
evidence or reasons).

if the
premises
fail to
support the
conclusion
(that is, if
the
reasoning is
bad), an
argument is
worthless.

The evaluation of every argument

centers on the evaluation of these
two claims. The more important of
the two is the inferential claim,
because if the premises fail to
support the conclusion (that is, if
the
reasoning is bad), an argument is
worthless.

inferential
claim
first.

Thus, we will always test the

inferential claim first, and only if
the premises do support the
conclusion will we test the factual
claim (that is, the claim that the
premises present genuine
evidence, or are true).

Deductive
Arguments

The previous section defined a

deductive argument as one
incorporating the claim that it is
impossible for the conclusion to be
false given that the premises are
true. If this claim is true, the
argument is said to be valid.

Thus, a valid deductive

argument is an argument in
which it is impossible for the
conclusion to be false given that
the premises are true.
In these arguments the conclusion
follows with strict necessity from
the premises

Conversely,
an invalid deductive argument
is a deductive argument in which
it is possible for the conclusion to
be false given that the premises
are true.

In these arguments the conclusion

does not follow with strict
necessity from the premises, even
though it is claimed to.

An immediate consequence of
these definitions is that there is no
middle ground between valid and
invalid. There are no arguments
that are almost valid and
almost invalid.
If the conclusion follows with strict
necessity from the premises, the
argument is valid; if not, it is
invalid.

To test an argument for validity we

begin by assuming that all the
premises are true, and then we
determine if it is possible, in light
of that assumption, for the
conclusion to be false.

All television networks are media

companies.
BBC is a television network.
Therefore, BBC is a media
company.

In this argument both premises

are actually true, so it is easy to
assume that they are true. Next
we determine, in light of this
assumption, if it is possible for the
conclusion to be false. Clearly this
is not possible.

All television
networks are
media
companies.
BBC is a
television
network.
Therefore, BBC
is a media
company.

If BBC is included in the group of

television networks
(second premise) and if the group
of television networks is included
in the group of media companies
(first premise), it necessarily
follows that BBC is included in the
group of media companies
(conclusion)

In other words, assuming the

premises to be true and the
conclusion false entails a strict
contradiction. Thus, the
argument is valid.

All automakers are computer

manufacturers.
United Airlines is an automaker.
Therefore, United Airlines is a
computer manufacturer.

In this argument, both premises

are actually false, but it is easy to
assume that they are true.

Every automaker could have a

corporate division that
manufactures computers.
Also, in addition to flying
airplanes, United Airlines could
make cars. Next, in light of these
assumptions, we determine if it is
possible for the conclusion to be
false.

Again, we see that this is not

possible, by the same reasoning
as the previous example.
Assuming the premises to be true
and the conclusion false entails a
contradiction.
Thus, the argument is valid.

All banks are financial institutions.

Wells Fargo is a financial
institution.
Therefore, Wells Fargo is a bank.

As in the first example, both

premises of this argument are
true, so it is easy to assume they
are true. Next we determine, in
light of this assumption, if it is
possible for the conclusion to be
false.

In this case it is possible. If banks

were included in one part of the
group of financial institutions and
Wells Fargo were included in
another part, then Wells Fargo
would not be a bank.

In other words, assuming the

premises to be true and the
conclusion false does not involve
any contradiction, and so the
argument is invalid.

In addition to illustrating the basic

idea of validity, these examples
suggest an
important point about validity and
truth.

In general, validity is not

something that is uniformly
determined by the actual
truth or falsity of the
premises and conclusion.

Both the BBC example and the

Wells Fargo example have actually
true premises and an actually true
conclusion, yet one is valid and
the other invalid.

The United Airlines example has

actually false premises and an
actually false conclusion, yet the
argument is valid

Rather, validity is something that

is determined by the relationship
between premises and conclusion.

All television
networks are
media
companies.
BBC is a
television
network.
Therefore, BBC
is a media
company.

The question is not whether the

premises and conclusion are true
or false, but whether the premises
support the conclusion.
In the examples of valid
arguments the premises do
support the conclusion, and in the
invalid case they do not.

Nevertheless, there is one

arrangement of truth and falsity in
the premises and conclusion that
does determine the issue of
validity. Any deductive argument
having
actually true premises and an
actually false conclusion is invalid.

The reasoning behind this fact is fairly

obvious. If the premises are actually true and
the conclusion is actually
false, then it certainly is possible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Thus, by the definition of invalidity, the
argument is invalid.

The idea that any deductive argument

having actually true premises and a false
conclusion
is invalid may be the most important point in
all of deductive logic.

The entire system of deductive logic would

be quite useless if it accepted as valid any
inferential
process by which a person could start with
truth in the premises and arrive at falsity in
the conclusion

Table 1.1 presents examples of deductive

arguments that illustrate the various
combinations of truth and falsity in the
premises and conclusion

In the examples having false

premises, both premises are
false, but it is easy to
construct other examples
having only one false
premise.
When examining this table,
note that the only
combination of truth and
falsity that does not allow for
both valid and invalid
arguments is true premises
and false conclusion. As we
have just seen, any argument
having this combination is
necessarily invalid.

The relationship
between the
validity of a
deductive
argument and
the truth or
falsity

This short summary

table reinforces the
point that merely
knowing the truth or
falsity of the premises
and conclusion tells us
nothing about validity
except in the one case
of true premises and
false conclusion.
Any deductive argument
having true premises
and a false conclusion is
necessarily invalid.

A sound argument

A sound argument is a deductive argument

that is valid and has all true premises. Both
conditions must be met for an argument to
be sound; if either is missing the
argument is unsound.

Thus, an unsound argument is a deductive

argument that is invalid, has one or more
false premises, or both. Because a valid
argument is one such that it is impossible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion
false, and because a sound argument does in
fact have true premises, it follows that every
sound argument, by definition, will have a
true conclusion as well.

A sound argument, therefore, is what is

meant by a good deductive argument in
the fullest sense of the term.

In connection with this definition of

soundness, a single proviso is required: For
an argument to be unsound, the false
premise or premises must actually be
needed to
support the conclusion.

An argument having a conclusion

that is validly supported by true
premises but having a superfluous
false premise would still be sound.
By similar reasoning, no addition
of a false premise to an originally
sound argument can make the
argument unsound.

Such a premise would be superfluous and

should
not be considered part of the argument.
Analogous remarks, incidentally, extend to
induction.
1 a:exceedingwhatissufficientornecessary:
EXTRA
b:notneeded:UNNECESSARY
2
obsolete:markedbywastefulness:
EXTRAVAGANT
superfluouslyadverb
superfluousnessnoun

Inductive
Arguments

Section 1.3

Section 1.3 defined an inductive

argument as one incorporating the
claim that it is improbable that the
conclusion be false given that the
premises are true. If this claim is
true, the argument is said to be
strong.

strong
inductive
argument

Thus, a strong inductive

argument is an inductive
argument in which it is improbable
that the conclusion be false given
that the premises are true. In such
arguments, the conclusion does in
fact follow probably from the
premises.

weak
inductive
argument

Conversely, a weak inductive

argument is an argument in
which the conclusion does not
follow probably from the premises,
even though it is claimed to.

All inductive arguments depend

on what philosophers call the
uniformity of nature.

the
uniformity
of nature.

According to this principle, the

future tends to replicate the past,
and regularities that prevail in one
spatial region tend to prevail in
other regions

For example, in the past, sugar

has always tasted sweet.
According to the uniformity of
nature, sugar will continue to
taste sweet in the future. Also, just
as sugar tastes sweet in Los
Angeles, so does it in New York,
London, and everywhere else.

The uniformity of nature is the

ultimate basis

for our
judgments about what we
naturally expect to occur.

Good inductive arguments are

those that accord with the
uniformity of nature. They have
conclusions that we naturally
expect to turn out true

If the conclusion
of such an
argument should
turn out to be
false, in violation
of our
expectations,
this occurrence
would cause us
to react with
surprise.

The
procedure
for testing
the strength
of inductive
arguments
runs parallel
(similar) to
the
procedure
for
deduction.

First we assume the premises are

true, and then we determine
whether, based on that
assumption, the conclusion is
probably true

experiential
background
(daily lives)

This determination is
accomplished by linking up the
premises with regularities that
exist in our experiential
background.

For example, if the argument is a

causal inference, we link the
information in the premises with
known causal patterns.

If the argument is an argument

from signs, we connect the
information in the premises with
what we know about signs: some
kinds of signs are trustworthy,
others are not.

If the argument is a
generalization, we connect the
information in the premises with
what we know about a sample
being representative of a
population. All of these
regularities are instance of the
uniformity of nature.

Here is an example of a
prediction:
All dinosaur bones discovered to
this day have been at least 50
million years old.
Therefore, probably the next
dinosaur bone to be found will be
at least 50 million years old.

In this
argument
the premise
is actually
true.

Given that all dinosaur bones

discovered to date have been over
50 million years old (and that
thousands of such bones have
been discovered), the uniformity
of nature dictates that the next
one to be discovered will also be
over 50 million years old.

This is what we would naturally

expect, and anything to the
contrary would be highly
surprising. Thus, the conclusion is
probably true, and so the
argument is strong.

All meteorites found to this day

have contained salt. Therefore,
probably the next meteorite to be
found will contain salt.

The premise of this argument is

clearly false; but if we assume it
to be true, then we would
naturally expect that the next
meteorite to be found would
contain salt. Thus, the argument is
strong.

an argument from analogy:

Dom Prignon champagne, which
is made in France, sells for over
100 dollars per
bottle. Marquis de la Tour is also a
French champagne. Therefore
probably it, too,
sells for over 100 dollars per
bottle.

Dom Prignon
champagne, which
is made in France,
sells for over 100
dollars per
bottle. Marquis de
la Tour is also a
French
champagne.
Therefore probably
it, too,
sells for over 100
dollars per bottle.

In this argument the premises are

actually true, but our background
experience tells us that the mere
fact that two wines come from the
same country does not
imply that they sell for the
same price. Thus, the argument is
weak. Th e conclusion,
incidentally, happens to be false.

inflation

inflSHn/
noun
1.
the action of inflating
something or the
condition of being
inflated.
"the inflation of a
balloon"
2.
ECONOMICS
a general increase in
prices and fall in the
purchasing value of
money.
"policies aimed at
controlling inflation"

Another example:
During the past fifty years,
inflation has consistently reduced
the value of the American dollar.
Therefore, industrial productivity
will probably increase in the years
ahead.

During the past

fifty years,
inflation has
consistently
reduced the value
of the American
dollar. Therefore,
industrial
productivity will
probably increase
in the years
ahead.

In this argument, the premise is

actually true and the conclusion is
probably true in the actual world,
but the probability of the
conclusion is in no way based on
the assumption that the premise
is true.

During the past

fifty years,
inflation has
consistently
reduced the
value of the
American
dollar.
Therefore,
industrial
productivity will
probably
increase in the
years ahead.

Because there is

no direct

connection

between inflation
and increased industrial
productivity, the premise is
irrelevant to the conclusion and it
provides no probabilistic support for
it.
The conclusion is probably true
independently of the premise. As a
result, the argument is weak.

This last example illustrates an important

distinction between strong inductive
arguments and valid deductive arguments.

As we will see in later chapters, if the

conclusion
of a deductive argument is necessarily true
independently of the premises, the argument
is still considered valid. But if the conclusion
of an inductive argument is probably true
independently of the premises, the argument
is weak.

These four examples show that in general

the strength or weakness of an inductive
argument results not from the actual truth or
falsity of the premises and conclusion, but
from the probabilistic support the premises
give to the conclusion

Here is an example of a prediction:

All dinosaur bones discovered to this
day have been at least 50 million years
old.
Therefore, probably the next dinosaur
bone to be found will be at least 50
million years old.
The dinosaur argument has a true
premise and a probably true conclusion,

All meteorites found to this day

have contained salt. Therefore,
probably the next meteorite to be
found will contain salt.
the meteorite argument has a
false premise and a probably false
conclusion;

yet both are strong because the premise of

each provides probabilistic support for the
conclusion.

The industrial productivity argument has a

true premise and a probably true conclusion,
but the argument is weak because the
premise provides no probabilistic support for
the conclusion.

inflation

inflSHn/
noun
1.
the action of inflating
something or the
condition of being
inflated.
"the inflation of a
balloon"
2.
ECONOMICS
a general increase in
prices and fall in the
purchasing value of
money.
"policies aimed at
controlling inflation"

Another example:
During the past fifty years,
inflation has consistently reduced
the value of the American dollar.
Therefore, industrial productivity
will probably increase in the years
ahead.

As in the evaluation of deductive arguments,

the only arrangement of truth and falsity that
establishes anything is true premises and
probably false conclusion (as in the Dom
Prignon argument).
Any inductive argument having true
premises and a probably false conclusion is
weak.