3 ms·

Hence my clarification where I stated the point differently. Yes, valid would have been a better choice. Do you see that you have taken my phrase logically so

by syops 6y ago

Hence my clarification where I stated the point differently. Yes, valid would have been a better choice. Do you see that you have taken my phrase logically sound and then switched to sound arguments? Do you think these mean the same thing?

mannykannot 6y ago
This is a pedantically pointless argument. In the domain of logic, 'sound' has a very definite meaning, so what are we to make of your use of the word 'sound' in a discussion of logic, especially given that you explicitly qualify it with 'logical'? What is the point of phrasing a statement in such a way that it will mislead everyone except those who can see what you actually meant? Those people already know what you are trying to say. I have not "taken [your] phrase logically sound and then switched to sound arguments". What I did, in the clause "sound arguments have true conclusions", was to make a statement of fact about the meaning of the word 'sound' in the domain of logic. On account of that being so, it would have been unequivocally wrong for you to have written "An argument can be sound but with a false conclusion." Ah, but you say (this is where it gets really pedantic) you did not write precisely that; you wrote "An argument can be logically sound but with a false conclusion" - but how do you think the modifier logically will be taken here, given that 'sound' has a specific meaning in the domain of logic? Don't tell us that (obviously!) 'logically sound' actually means 'valid'!
- xupybd 6y ago
  Communication is hard. It's harder when both parties are not using the same definitions. I've found this is one of the biggest difficulties in hashing out an argument with a stranger online. With someone I know I can spot when our definitions don't match. Online it takes a lot more back and forth and often is less friendly.

3 ms·

Hence my clarification where I stated the point differently. Yes, valid would have been a better choice. Do you see that you have taken my phrase logically so

by syops 6y ago

mannykannot 6y ago
This is a pedantically pointless argument. In the domain of logic, 'sound' has a very definite meaning, so what are we to make of your use of the word 'sound' in a discussion of logic, especially given that you explicitly qualify it with 'logical'? What is the point of phrasing a statement in such a way that it will mislead everyone except those who can see what you actually meant? Those people already know what you are trying to say. I have not "taken [your] phrase logically sound and then switched to sound arguments". What I did, in the clause "sound arguments have true conclusions", was to make a statement of fact about the meaning of the word 'sound' in the domain of logic. On account of that being so, it would have been unequivocally wrong for you to have written "An argument can be sound but with a false conclusion." Ah, but you say (this is where it gets really pedantic) you did not write precisely that; you wrote "An argument can be logically sound but with a false conclusion" - but how do you think the modifier logically will be taken here, given that 'sound' has a specific meaning in the domain of logic? Don't tell us that (obviously!) 'logically sound' actually means 'valid'!
- xupybd 6y ago
  Communication is hard. It's harder when both parties are not using the same definitions. I've found this is one of the biggest difficulties in hashing out an argument with a stranger online. With someone I know I can spot when our definitions don't match. Online it takes a lot more back and forth and often is less friendly.