Poll on the soundness of an argument about what a buoy does

[surreptitious57]

For all we know a wave may be the state of some water in the sea
What the buoy does is determined by the state of some water in the sea
Therefore for all we know what the buoy does may be determined by a wave

Is this argument sound

No that argument is not sound

It is not absolutely true both within and without the context of the argument as is required

You mean the premises are not true ? Please clarify

As a sound argument has to be rigorous enough for there to be no alternative interpretation

Just to claim it does isnt quite enough . You would need to articulate explicitly some alternative interpretation

A sound argument is one where both the premises and the conclusion are objectively true
That is to say that they are not only valid within the argument but also true without it too

In other words both the premises and conclusion are not only logically consistent but also factually true
A factually true argument has to be rigorous enough for it not to be subject to interpretation in any way

[Age]

So, why?
Can you explain?
EB

Yes.

The second sentence/premise is NOT necessarily true.

OK, good point, but does that make the argument unsound?

Yes.

And why?
EB

If we are to accept and agree that an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true, then, because in your argument a premise is NOT necessarily true, the argument is NOT sound.

[Speakpigeon]

A sound argument is one where both the premises and the conclusion are objectively true
That is to say that they are not only valid within the argument but also true without it too

OK.

In other words both the premises and conclusion are not only logically consistent but also factually true
A factually true argument has to be rigorous enough for it not to be subject to interpretation in any way

OK, you're just repeating yourself.
Any actual "alternative interpretation"?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

If we are to accept and agree that an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true, then, because in your argument a premise is NOT necessarily true, the argument is NOT sound.

No. Either the premise is true or it isn't. "Not necessarily true" is irrelevant here.
The argument is sound if the premises are true. Whether they seem necessarily true to you is irrelevant.
For example, suppose John happens to believe premise 2 is true, and also see the argument as valid. He would have to believe that the conclusion is true, isn't it? So, if you disagree with John about the truth of premise 2, that's it. You just disagree. Who is going to tell who is right?
So, how do you prove you're right and John is wrong?
In other words, soundness doesn't really depend on whether the premises are true but whether you believe they are true. And how could you prove that premise 2 is false?
Second, I'm not going to phrase an argument to take into account any scientific theory, which might or migntn't be true anyway.
So, we're down to the fact that you believe premise 2 false. John believes it's true. How do you prove you're right?
So, arguments are only really effective on the basis of what we believe. If you think an argument is valid and you believe the premises are true, then you normally have to accept the conclusion as true, unless you are illogical. What matters, therefore, is validity. Then, each of us decides for himself whether he thinks the premises are true.
Unless you could prove premise 2 false. All you have for now, is that you feel it's not true. Well, John feels it's true.
Second, you would really need to know that premise 2 is false. If you feel that it may well be true, or if you accept that you don't actually know that premise 2 is false, then the conclusion is effectively true. So, to decide that the argument is unsound, you would need to actually know that premise 2 is false, not merely that it is not necessarily true. That seems a very tall order. Like proving John wrong.
EB

[surreptitious57]

soundness doesnt really depend on whether the premises are true but whether you believe they are true

How do you determine the truth value of any premise ? It has to be objectively true and demonstrably so too
This is because the premises and the conclusion of a sound argument have to be actual facts and nothing else
So any sound argument where either the premises or conclusion are only believed to be true is not sound at all

[Speakpigeon]

soundness doesnt really depend on whether the premises are true but whether you believe they are true

How do you determine the truth value of any premise ?

If you know a premise is true, that's it. It is true.

It has to be objectively true and demonstrably so too

Why would that be?
You may want to prove premises true for whatever reasons but that's not the same as saying that you have to.

This is because the premises and the conclusion of a sound argument have to be actual facts and nothing else

Who says? Is that "objectively true and demonstrably true"?
I'm certainly not aware of that.
Inevitably, different people will consider the same premises differently. So, what is a sound argument for one, is an unsound argument for the other.
Validity is a bit better. More people agree as to validity than there are people agreeing as to the truth of many particular premises.
And logic primarily is a subjective thing. I would assume that trying to objectify it is probably a good idea but that's obviously not so easy to achieve.

So any sound argument where either the premises or conclusion are only believed to be true is not sound at all

It is sound for the person who believes the premises true and as such compels the person to believe the conclusion.
EB

[Age]

If we are to accept and agree that an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true, then, because in your argument a premise is NOT necessarily true, the argument is NOT sound.

No. Either the premise is true or it isn't. "Not necessarily true" is irrelevant here.

Last time you said that it was a good point but now you are saying that it is irrelevant, so which one is it really?

The argument is sound if the premises are true. Whether they seem necessarily true to you is irrelevant.

i thought a big part of forming an argument was for the reader's/listener's benefit to understand some thing. If a premise is not necessarily true to a reader/listener, then that argument will not be necessarily sound, to them, also.

To a reader/listener how an argument is accepted is extremely relevant. Is not one point of arguing about getting one's views across to another and having those views fully understood?

If yes, then, to me, it is very relevant to both the writer/speaker AND to the reader/listener how the premises come across.

You may believe that the soundness of an argument is only relevant to the writer/speaker but you are free to believe that.

For example, suppose John happens to believe premise 2 is true, and also see the argument as valid. He would have to believe that the conclusion is true, isn't it?

Yes. One has to believe what is in line with, and that what follows on from, what they, themselves, already believe is true.

So, if you disagree with John about the truth of premise 2, that's it. You just disagree. Who is going to tell who is right?

Both.

So, how do you prove you're right and John is wrong?

But it is not about "proving" who is right, it is just a matter of discovering what is true and right first, through clarifying questions. For example I am not clear on who 'john' is, so I would ask a question like; Who is 'john'? Once I have gained clarity on that, then I could be much clearer about the argument and could proceed much further into the discussion.

In other words, soundness doesn't really depend on whether the premises are true but whether you believe they are true.

I never believe any thing, so soundness, to me, is not dependent upon beliefs but rather on the actual truth of a statement/premise instead.

And how could you prove that premise 2 is false?

Usually just through clarifying questions.

If the writer/speaker is claiming some thing is true, then they obviously must also be able to back it up.

Second, I'm not going to phrase an argument to take into account any scientific theory, which might or migntn't be true anyway.

That, to me, appears to be a very strange thing to just come out and express now. I certainly was not expecting you to phrase any thing to take into account any scientific theory.

Where you assuming some thing for you to write that? If yes, then what was that that you were assuming.

So, we're down to the fact that you believe premise 2 false.

That is a wrong and false statement.

John believes it's true. How do you prove you're right?

As stated earlier it is not about "proving" any thing but just about clarifying who is 'john'?

So, arguments are only really effective on the basis of what we believe.

From one perspective that is (necessarily) true but from another perspective that is not (necessarily) true.

The absolute truth is found (in the middle, as they say) from another perspective.

If you think an argument is valid and you believe the premises are true, then you normally have to accept the conclusion as true, unless you are illogical.

That is one way to look at this, but that appears to be an illogical way to be looking.

What matters, therefore, is validity. Then, each of us decides for himself whether he thinks the premises are true.

They do.

Unless you could prove premise 2 false. All you have for now, is that you feel it's not true. Well, John feels it's true.

To me, you have already made an assumption, jumped to a conclusion, and are now "trying to" argue for some thing that is totally unnecessary. I do not feel premise 2 is not true.

Second, you would really need to know that premise 2 is false.

If I want to know if your argument is valid and sound or not, then I would just need to know if premise 2 is true or not. That is all.

If you feel that it may well be true, or if you accept that you don't actually know that premise 2 is false, then the conclusion is effectively true.

How and why do you propose the conclusion all of a sudden becomes 'effectivelly' true?

I just got through telling you that your argument is not sound because, to me, your premise 2 is not necessarily true, which obviously means that I do not know if it is true OR false.

So, to decide that the argument is unsound, you would need to actually know that premise 2 is false, not merely that it is not necessarily true. That seems a very tall order. Like proving John wrong.
EB

You have appeared to have completely misconstrued what I actually wrote, and thus what I actually am saying, with some thing else, which has completely taken you off track.

You just asked if your argument is sound or not, and, if not, then why?

I have just been answering your questions.

If I really want to know if your argument is sound or not, then I could just ask you a very simple clarifying question about premise 2.

[surreptitious57]

So any sound argument where either the premises or conclusion are only believed to be true is not sound at all

It is sound for the person who believes the premises true and as such compels the person to believe the conclusion

If they believe the premises and conclusion are true but they are actually false then the argument cannot be sound

[Skip]

Coz I said so. What more do you need?

[Speakpigeon]

So any sound argument where either the premises or conclusion are only believed to be true is not sound at all

It is sound for the person who believes the premises true and as such compels the person to believe the conclusion

If they believe the premises and conclusion are true but they are actually false then the argument cannot be sound

Sure, but who is going to tell?
EB