Truth and Validity in arguments

Truth and Logic

Truth is an attribute of a proposition and it refers to what is really the case. A proposition is an
assertive sentence that can be either true or false. So “truth” and “falsity” are truth values of a
proposition. A proposition can be a premise of an argument and it could be true. Also a
proposition could be a conclusion of an argument and it could be false.
Take the following argument:
All men are immortal. (Premise 1)
Hari is a man. (Premise 2)
Therefore, Hari is immortal. (Conclusion)

Here premise 1 is false, premise 2 is true, and the conclusion is false. The truth value of the
above propositions is known to us. But logic is not concerned about whether these propositions
are actually true or not. Logic tries to determine, in a case where the given premises are true, if
we can necessarily draw the conclusion from the premises. This leads to the issue of validity

Validity and Logic

“Validity is a formal characteristic; it applies only to arguments, as distinguished from truth,

which applies to [individual] proposition[s]”. Validity is an attribute of an argument. An argument
is valid if the relationship between its components are so that the premises conclusively prove
the conclusion. That means, validity is about the logical connection between the propositions.
Take the following example:
All men are saints.
Einstein is a man.
Therefore, Einstein is a saint

The conclusion of this argument necessarily follows from the premises. In the above argument,
if the premises were true, then there is no possible scenario where the conclusion would be
false. Therefore, this argument is a valid one. Conversely, if the conclusion is not a logical
necessity, then the argument is not valid, and it will be called an invalid argument.
Deductive Logic: Validity

It is clear that validity as a logical concept is exclusively applied on deductive arguments only
and therefore it is an important part of any discussion on Deductive Logic. Validity can be
properly defined in the context of deductive arguments. The objective of deductive arguments is
to establish that the conclusion undeniably follows from the premises. When it achieves this
objective, the argument is said to be valid, and when it fails to achieve this objective then the
argument is not valid and therefore it can be termed as being an “invalid” argument.

Let us consider an example1 : All Fast foods are unhealthy.

French Fry is a Fast Food.
Therefore, French Fry is Unhealthy

We know that if the premises in this argument are true then the conclusion can never be false.
Therefore, this is a valid argument. The validity is determined by the relationship between the
premises and the conclusion

Example 2
All mammals have wings.
All plants are mammals.
Therefore, all plants have wings.

All the propositions in the above argument are false, but the argument is still valid, because the
logical relationship of the propositions is such that if the premises were actually true, the
conclusion would be certainly true.

The relationship between argument and propositions is a structural one. The validity and
invalidity of an argument depends on the logical relationship between its propositions.
Propositions are constituent parts of an argument. Every argument can have one proposition as
conclusion and at least two or more propositions as premises. Each proposition can be true or
false, and every argument must be either valid or invalid. Logicians have noted that there are
several arrangements of truth/falsity and validity/invalidity. These arrangements will provide
crucial clues to understand the relationship between truth and validity in Deductive Logic. Let us
explore those arrangements with examples.

Arrangement 1: True Premises, True Conclusion, Valid Argument Example:

All mammals are animals.
All cats are mammals.
Therefore, all cats are animals.
In this argument, all the propositions are known to be true. The premises conclusively establish
the conclusion; therefore, making the argument “valid”.

Arrangement 2: False Premises, False Conclusion, Valid Argument

Example: All mammals are six legged animals.
All Ostriches are mammals.
Therefore, all Ostriches are six legged animals.
In this argument, all the propositions are known to be false. But here the premises conclusively
establish the conclusion, because if the premises were actually true, the conclusion would have
been certainly true. Therefore, this argument is also valid.

Arrangement 3: False Premises, True Conclusion, Valid Argument

Example: All Fishes are mammals.
All dolphins are fishes.
Therefore, all dolphins are mammals.
The conclusion here is true in reality, but the premises are unquestionably false. However,
since there is a logically necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion,
because of which the premises conclusively support the conclusion, the argument is valid.

Arrangement 4: True Premises, False Conclusion, Invalid Argument

Example: If Ratan Tata won the KBC Show, he would be a millionaire.
Ratan Tata doesn’t win the KBC show.
Therefore, Ratan Tata is not a millionaire.
In this argument the premises are true, but the conclusion is false in reality. Mr. Tata till now
didn’t participate in KBC show, but he is one of the richest persons in India.The argument is
invalid because the premises don’t conclusively establish the conclusion

Deductive Logic : Soundness and unsoundness

The evaluation of deductive argument is not limited to identifying valid and invalid arguments.
Depending on its relationship with truth, arguments can be further classified as “sound” and
“unsound”. A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and it has true premise. It
must satisfy two conditions: the argument must be valid, and the premises must be true. If any
of this condition is not met, then no valid argument can be termed as sound. Consider the
following argument:
All planets of the solar system revolve around the Sun.
The Earth is a planet of the Solar System.
Therefore, the Earth revolves around the Sun.
This argument is valid because the logical relation between the propositions are so that if the
premises were true, then the conclusion would be certainly true. This argument is valid and in
Because, by definition of validity, if the argument is valid and if its premises are true, then it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false. We already know that in a sound argument the
argument is valid and the premises are actually true, therefore, now we can say that the
conclusion will be actually true. addition, the premises here are actually true. So this is a Sound
deductive arguments. Now one can ask whether the conclusion in such a case will also be true?
The answer is always yes.

Significance of Validity in Deductive logic

The evaluation of deductive arguments is measured in terms of validity and invalidity. Valid and
invalid arguments are further evaluated as sound and unsound arguments. Sound arguments
are what can be termed as good arguments, that can lead us to actually true conclusions with
utmost certainty. In such a situation, one can ask, why logicians do not confine themselves to
the study of arguments with true premises only as that may lead us to sound arguments? What
is the importance of the non-sound valid arguments? Specially, what is the importance of
exploring valid arguments whose premises are not true? Actually the validity of arguments with
premises not known to be true are more important than they seem to be. In our day-to-day life,
we often need to choose between alternative courses of action where we do not know which
alternative is in fact true. What we do is consider the consequences of these alternative
courses. On considering the consequences, we decide which course of action should be
followed.We need to be serious in deciding the consequences of the alternative courses. That is
where our training in valid argument with false premises can help us. Because, in case of valid
argument with false premise, the logical relation between premises and conclusion is such that
if the premises were true, the conclusion would be also true. If we follow a similar valid logical
process in deciding the consequences, then we can correctly choose the alternative course of
action. Thus here we “make’ (as I. M. Copi puts it) the premises true out of the available
alternative courses. But if we deal with only already known true premises, then there will be no
point in considering alternative courses, we can accept the one which is true. The purpose of
applying logic here will be self-defeating. But the reality is that there will be always alternative
courses in life where truth of the alternatives may not be known us. Another important aspect is
the use of deductive logic in the Sciences. Scientists often verify scientific theories using
deductive method. Many theoretical premises cannot be verified as true. But scientist can
deduce particular testable instances from such theories. Such particular instances can be tested
for truth, which further confirms the theory in question. But this will only work, if the process of
such a deduction follows a valid path.

Inductive Logic : Strong

In contrast, an inductive argument claims that the conclusion probably follows from the
premises, i.e., to say if the premises are true, then it is improbable for the conclusion to be false.
Logicians examine these claims of probability. But probability is a matter of degree. There is no
certainty of the conclusion being true, even if the premises are true, even if the procedure of
induction is correctly followed. Therefore, the terms “validity” and “invalidity” are not applicable
here. In fact, there is no term fixed by logicians to identify good and bad inductive arguments.
However, the terms “Strong” and “Weak” are used by some logicians for the evaluation of
inductive arguments.
An inductive argument is strong when it achieves its objectives. The objective of an inductive
argument is to establish that it is improbable for the conclusion to be false when the premises
are true. The conclusion here has a probability of being supported by the premises. On the
other hand, a weak inductive argument is the one which fails its objective. So in a weak
inductive argument, the conclusion does not probably follow from the premises, even though it
is claimed so.

let us consider how the truth and falsity of propositions of inductive arguments are related to
their strength and weakness. Here also we can find several arrangements parallel to
arrangement that we examined in case of deductive argument.

Arrangement 1: True Premises, Probably True Conclusion, Strong Argument

Example: Every year in last decade there were always heavy rainfall during monsoon in Assam.
Therefore, probably there will be heavy rainfall in the monsoon of this year in Assam.
In this argument the premise is actually true, as there was heavy rainfall every year in last
decade during monsoon in Assam. The uniformity of nature dictates that in the next monsoon
also there will be heavy rainfall in Assam. This is also what we naturally expect to happen. Thus
the conclusion is probably true, and the argument is strong.

Arrangement 2: False Premises, Probably True Conclusion, Strong Argument

Example: Every Indian Prime Ministers was a poet.
Therefore, it is probable that the next Indian prime minister will also be a poet.
Here the premise is actually false (some of our prime ministers were good poets, but not
everyone was a poet). But if we assume that the premise is true, then we would naturally expect
that the prime minister will be a poet. So, the argument is strong.

Arrangement 3: False Premises, Probably False Conclusion, Strong Argument

Example: Every Rhino discovered in Assam are two-horned.
Therefore, probably the next Rhino discovered in Assam will be two-horned.
In this argument the premise is clearly false, the conclusion has a high probability of being
false. But if we assume the premise as true, then we naturally expect that the conclusion would
have been also true. Therefore, the argument is strong.

Arrangement 4: True Premises, Probably False Conclusion, Weak Argument

Example: A few Indian Space Missions have failed.
Therefore, probably the next Indian Space Mission will fail.
Here the premise is actually true. But the conclusion has a high degree of being false because
relevant instances are very low leading to very low degree of probability. Therefore, the
argument is weak.