Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
Do you have an argument that would be considered sound (“sound” as used by logicians or those that adhere to what you call mathematical logic) that would not be considered valid (the sense of “valid” you use) by you?
A small collection, yes.

Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
The disconnect between our sense of “valid” that’s been with us for thousands of years and the newfound sense of ‘valid’, the corrupted version through mathematical molestation becomes inconsequential when we deflect away from the implication of the variance between the two when soundness used by logicians is compared to validity used by the layman.
Yeah, sure, that was my working assumption initially. I'm a very reasonable person and I thought, hey, all these mathematicians, surely they must know what they are talking about! I expected some sort of resolution along the line you're suggesting here. But at some point, I realised that what these people are talking about, that is, mathematical logic, isn't logic, i.e. isn't the logic of human reasoning.

No big deal, though, just please leave us alone and don't come and lecture us human beings about what arguments are valid and what aren't.

But no. They have to lecture people. They can't stop themselves. They won't say, Oh, you have a different view on logic? Let's debate on that in a rational and civilised manner! No, instead, wherever I would post something on logic, some intemperate dude would start chiding me as if I was the villainous perpetrator of a hideous crime. Two of them actually completely lost it, going beserk on line! LOL! They sort of don't like ... the contradiction! It makes them explode, I guess.

Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
If I’m wrong, show me an argument I deem sound that you don’t deem valid.
You're wrong and I won't show anything, but for some of them I found that they were already on Wikipedia, so it's not even a secret and therefore mathematicians know of them, I mean those at least who know their stuff.

Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
I still think language (and not any substantive issue) underlies the conflict. <imagining speakers discussing a topic through prankster interpreters>
Sure, you do, and that's fine with me, as long as you don't pretend to know that mathematical logic is correct. You just don't know that. Most mathematicians don't even know what it means for a theory of logic or a definition of validity to be correct. They just haven't a clue.

I'm not here to teach logic. I make an empirical investigation, and it's for all to see. The ones without blinkers.