Definition of logical validity

[Logik]

Modus Tollens doesn't solve anything, numb nuts.
If the premise is true (P)
And the argument is valid (V)
Then the conclusion is true (C)
P ∧ V ⇒ C
Write out the truth-table, cretin.
P V C
0 0 0 If the premises are false AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is false
0 1 0 If the preises are false AND the argument is valid the conclusion is false.
1 0 0 If the premises are true AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is false.
1 1 1 If the premises are true AND the argument is valid the conclusion is true.

No.
This proves you don't even know the truth table of the material implication.
So, here is the correction of your "truth table" completed with the three missing logical cases in bold red:

P V C
0 0 0 If the premises are false AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is false
0 1 0 If the premises are false AND the argument is valid the conclusion is false.
1 0 0 If the premises are true AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is false.
0 0 1 If the premises are false AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is true.
0 1 1 If the premises are false AND the argument is valid the conclusion is true.
1 0 1 If the premises are true AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is true.
1 1 1 If the premises are true AND the argument is valid the conclusion is true.

You are an ignoramus. A loud and abusive ignoramus.
EB

Moron. What you have provided is not the truth-table for P ∧ V ⊢ C

A function with 2 inputs can not have 7 outputs! Not to mention that 7 is now power of 2 so you still missed one

You know. Because 2^2 = 4.

The irony. To call me an ignoramus when you fail basic arithmetic.

You don't even how to stay on the right side of the law of non-contradiction.

1 0 0 If the premises are true AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is false.
1 0 1 If the premises are true AND the argument is invalid the conclusion is true.

[Speakpigeon]

Could you give an example of a scientific theory you think is logically not valid

Science is inductive and so deals with what is probably true not what is definitely true

All irrelevant to my post.
I said "scientific theory", not science.

New evidence could falsify every single one of them including the most rigorous ones

I didn't talk of the falsification of scientific theories. I asked for an example of a scientific theory you think is logically not valid.
I don't have the time to correct your numerous factual mistakes.
If you can't read properly or if you don't understand English, please, just ignore me.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Moron. What you have provided is not the truth-table for P ∧ V ⊢ C.
A function with 2 inputs can not have 8 outputs!
You know. Because 2^2 = 4.
The irony. To call me an ignoramus when you fail basic arithmetic.

There are three logical variables, P, V and C, so 8 cases.
You should look up a textbook on the truth table of the material implication.
EB

[Logik]

There are three logical variables, P, V and C, so 8 cases.

C is the ASSERTED from P and V.
P and V are the inputs.
C is the output.

P has 2 possible values.
V has 2 possible values.

The total number of permutations is 4.

If my abuse was to be in proportion to your stupidity then I am definitely not abusive enough!

[Speakpigeon]

Look here what the Modus tollens really says: ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A

(...)
So ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A is exactly the same thing as ¬C ∧ V ⊢ ¬P

But that last line ins't what you claimed earlier.
You said "If ¬C ⇒ ¬P", not "¬C ∧ V ⊢ ¬P":

Modus Tollens says If ¬C ⇒ ¬P. But that's incomplete!

See? You didn't mention "V" at all.
So, yes, your own definition of the "Modus tollens" is incomplete.
You would need to retrain starting from kindergarten.
EB

[Logik]

Look here what the Modus tollens really says: ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A

(...)
So ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A is exactly the same thing as ¬C ∧ V ⊢ ¬P

But that last line ins't what you claimed earlier.
You said "If ¬C ⇒ ¬P", not "¬C ∧ V ⊢ ¬P":

Modus Tollens says If ¬C ⇒ ¬P. But that's incomplete!

See? You didn't mention "V" at all.
So, yes, your own definition of the "Modus tollens" is incomplete.
You would need to retrain starting from kindergarten.
EB

Well. You are dumber than I thought.

[Speakpigeon]

There are three logical variables, P, V and C, so 8 cases.

C is the ASSERTED from P and V.
P and V are the inputs.
C is the output.

There are no notion of input or of output for determining the truth table of a logical formula.
So, it's quite simple. You identify in the formula the logical variables, those that can be true or false, that's two possible cases for each variable, and so the number of possible cases overall will be 2 to the power of n, n being the number of logical variables you've identified. Three variables in your example, P, V and C, so 8 logical cases.
EB

[Logik]

There are three logical variables, P, V and C, so 8 cases.

C is the ASSERTED from P and V.
P and V are the inputs.
C is the output.

There are no notion of input or of output for determining the truth table of a logical formula.
So, it's quite simple. You identify in the formula the logical variables, those that can be true or false, that's two possible cases for each variable, and so the number of possible cases overall will be 2 to the power of n, n being the number of logical variables you've identified. Three variables in your example, P, V and C, so 8 logical cases.
EB

Stop stealing out air!

The notion of input and output comes directly from the words IF ..... THEN...

[Speakpigeon]

C is the ASSERTED from P and V.
P and V are the inputs.
C is the output.

There are no notion of input or of output for determining the truth table of a logical formula.
So, it's quite simple. You identify in the formula the logical variables, those that can be true or false, that's two possible cases for each variable, and so the number of possible cases overall will be 2 to the power of n, n being the number of logical variables you've identified. Three variables in your example, P, V and C, so 8 logical cases.
EB

The notion of input and output comes directly from the words IF ..... THEN...

No notion of input/output in logic, ever.
You're an ignoramus and you make up nonsensical stuff as you go.
EB

[Logik]

There are no notion of input or of output for determining the truth table of a logical formula.
So, it's quite simple. You identify in the formula the logical variables, those that can be true or false, that's two possible cases for each variable, and so the number of possible cases overall will be 2 to the power of n, n being the number of logical variables you've identified. Three variables in your example, P, V and C, so 8 logical cases.
EB

The notion of input and output comes directly from the words IF ..... THEN...

No notion of input/output in logic, ever.
You're an ignoramus and you make up nonsensical stuff as you go.
EB

If the logic you are being taught has no inputs and outputs - ask for your money back!

[Speakpigeon]

If the logic you are being taught has no inputs and outputs - ask for your money back!

That's all you can articulate?
Not exactly compelling.
Aristotle wouldn't have been impressed.
EB

[Logik]

If the logic you are being taught has no inputs and outputs - ask for your money back!

That's all you can articulate?
Not exactly compelling.
Aristotle wouldn't have been impressed.
EB

Aristotle was an idiot.

[Speakpigeon]

Aristotle was an idiot.

Very easy to say but impossible to argue as you declined to articulate your point.
EB

[Logik]

Aristotle was an idiot.

Very easy to say but impossible to argue as you declined to articulate your point.
EB

Trivial to argue. Justify the law of excluded middle.

[Speakpigeon]

Aristotle was an idiot.

Very easy to say but impossible to argue as you declined to articulate your point.
EB

Trivial to argue. Justify the law of excluded middle.

There's nothing to justify. The law of excluded middle, like all logical truths, is intuitive. You accept it or you don't, it's your problem.
Most people accept it, including all logicians since Aristotle, over a period of 2,400 years.
I put aside claims made in the context of modern mathematical logic and based on the notion of material implication as defined by a truth table, as it is inconsistent with our intuition of the logical implication.
If you think there is a problem with the law of excluded middle, it's up to you to articulate why it would be inconsistent.
If you don't, then there's no point going further.
So, you haven't justified your claim that Aristotle was an idiot.
EB