Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Edwardo Piet]

Sound does not mean true . And your idea's are not even sound .

I agree his ideas are not sound.

However soundness does imply truth.

A sound argument is an argument with both true premises and a conclusion that is logically entailed by those premises. A valid argument is an argument where the conclusion is also logically entailed by the premises but the premises themselves are not necessarily true.

Steve has said elsewhere (after making an invalid argument when the conclusion didn't even follow from the premises) that his argument was sound because the conclusion followed from the premises. Not only did his argument fail to even be valid, let alone sound, but a sound argument requires more than a conclusion that follows from the premises. A sound argument requires that the premises also be true. An argument where the conclusion follows from the premises is merely valid and not necessarily sound at all.

An example of a valid argument:

"All horses have 6 legs,
I am a horse
Therefore I have 6 legs"

This argument is valid because it is true that if all horses have 6 legs and I am a horse then I have 6 legs. However it's not sound at all because there is no reason to think that I am a horse or that all horses have 6 legs. The conclusion is follows from the two premises and is therefore valid because if all horses did have 6 legs and I was a horse then I would have 6 legs but the argument is unsound because the two premises are bullshit because I am not a horse and I don't have 6 legs.

This argument is sound:

"A bachelor is an unmarried adult
I am an unmarried adult
Therefore I am a bachelor"

Not only does the conclusion follow from the two premises, but the two premises are true. A bachelor is an unmarried adult and I am an unmarried adult. That makes this argument both sound and valid (or simply sound, since a sound argument is also valid) while the previous argument was valid but not sound.