As a former (read-now retired) philosophy teacher, I was asked over the years
to examine whether a student had created a valid argument by using symbolic
logic. As a result of such an examination, I could only state whether the
argument was logically valid; but by declaring an argument valid says nothing
as to whether it (the argument) is true. An argument may be valid in its form,
but not necessarily true. Conversely, an argument may be true but not valid as
written because the author made a mistake with how he or she constructed the
argument. The most difficult task was trying to teach symbolic logic because
students often could not differentiate between 'valid' and 'true,' often
mistakenly thinking one had something to do with the other (it doesn't).
Look, it's just a fun way for me to exercise my brain, and Ercoupe-tech is a
wonderfully informative board that I still follow even though I am currently
"sans-a-coupe." The error in logic was there in the original argument, just
waiting for me to step up and knock it out of the park. Please forgive an old
teacher his penchant for doing what comes naturally. It was done in the spirit
of academic clarity, and nothing more. Hope everyone who celebrates has a
wonderful Holy Week and blessed Easter.
Carl LaVon.
