(September 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I would suggest that it's the same system, and that the same metrics apply. If some part of a statement is false (or does not meet requirements) then we could not call the statement true.
You might want to suggest that to the folks who came up with said system. I'd start with Aristotle, but I hear the fellow isn't feeling so well these days.
BTW, I think you're unintentionally equivocating a bit here. Premises and conclusions are statements - arguments are not. A large part of the problem here appears to be your insisting to apply "truth" to arguments as a placeholder for "sound" (it's inappropriate because "sound" has additional properties other than those possessed by "true").
(September 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Not necessarily true" reads, to me, as false. True/false is a binary proposition, imo.
"Not" is modifying "necessarily", not "true".
(September 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If I handed you my math homework, and I got all of the answers right for the wrong reasons - would you pass me or fail me?
I'd fail you of course, because the point of the exercise isn't to get the correct answers. Or rather, I might say that you "didn't necessarily pass"
