Sure, but "often trumps" won't be enough here.
And you would have to justify your implicit notion here that mathematical logic is the correct way to do logic as people not trained in mathematical logic think of it. I think I have demonstrated it's not.
Consequently, there is zero good reason to use mathematical logic's notion of validity when discussing logic.
That's entirely irrelevant to this thread since I asked about validity. It is also entirely irrelevant to my comment to DBT. I hope you're not suggesting DBT is confused about soundness and validity?
I use the term "soundness" as most people understand it and we all understand enough of the difference between sound and valid to talk competently about it. And that's what I'm interested in anyway.
You asked “is the argument logically valid?”
When you specifically use the term “logically” to describe a particular sense of validity when discussing an argument, not only will Larry, Curly, Moe, Shemp, and Joe refrain from using “valid” in a layman sense as explained in dictionaries, they will (like most all logicians) turn to a glossary specific to the field of logic as used by those who study logic.
‘Logic’ need not even resemble “logic.” ‘Valid’ need not resemble “valid.”
Ah the reason I left out because it is so obvious that I constructed instances for possibly logical true applications of everyone is female. It is demonstrably false that Everyone is female which would make you last comment really embarrassing for you. If it is demonstrably false it cannot be logically true.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. "Everyone" means "every person". "Sibling" means "one of two or more individuals having one common parent", not "one of two or more individual persons having one common parent". So everyone being female doesn't imply ducks don't have brothers.
Maybe in that little universe all males were killed off and females took up the practice of cloning.....consequently, 'everyone is female?'
How can you be so utterly ignorant?
Still, I didn't ask whether the premise was true, or indeed "*logically true*", whatever you may mean by that.
I ask about the argument, and I asked whether it was *logically valid*, not whether it was logically true.
But I guess your answer goes a long way to explain how you don't understand anything I say.
EB
LOL. This is preposterous. You are talking from ignorance.
Beside, you can see for yourself that Joe does use "valid" to refer to logical validity. Everybody does. You should try it.
You keep up the pretence that logic is only mathematical logic. Aristotle came 2,300 years before any mathematical logic and described logic as he saw it in the argument of philosophers at the time and indeed in the way people in general used language.
Indeed.
I just realised you don't argue.
EB