Definition talk:Sound Argument

Different sources have different definitions for "sound argument". For example, appears to define it as a "valid argument whose premises are true", IOW a Definition:Proof, whereas  uses it to mean just a "valid argument".

Because of its ambiguity, I recommended we discontinue its use and instead use Definition:Proof instead. --prime mover (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's probably the best course of action. --Lord_Farin (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm all for avoiding ambiguity, but I believe Salmon's definition is the more common one. I just checked other logic and critical thinking books I have and I found 4 more books with Salmon's definition and none with Lemmon's. All four have different authors. --GFauxPas (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Apart from the anomaly which is Lemmon, which equates soundness and validity, my several other sources have a subtly different definition of the word "sound" which is used to describe an axiom system which is non-contradictory. "Soundness" appears to be a concept of mathematical logic (or metalogic) as opposed to "conventional" propositional logic. From what direction are your books on critical thinking coming from - mathematics or philosophy? --prime mover (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Some are harder to categorize than others. Salmon's book is probably more philosophy. The others:


 * Modern Formal Logic, Thomas J McKay: math
 * Critical Thinking, Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker: philosophy
 * A Modern Formal Logic Primer, Paul Teller: math
 * Introduction to Logic, Irving Copi and Carl Cohen: not sure.


 * --GFauxPas (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)