An argument can be logically valid even if its premise refutes its conclusion.
Is it true that an argument can be logically valid even if its premise refutes its conclusion?
This is a fundamental principle of classical logic (specifically, the principle of explosion or ex falso quodlibet, which dictates that any conclusion follows from a contradictory set of premises), making citation unnecessary.
Verdict: COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 0 sources for, 0 against · Last checked
The claim addresses a well-established property of formal deductive logic where a contradictory (unsatisfiable) premise set entails every proposition, rendering the argument vacuously valid. This is a matter of formal logic definitions taught in introductory philosophy and mathematics, classifying it as common knowledge within the domain.
What does the evidence say?
The claim addresses a well-established property of formal deductive logic where a contradictory (unsatisfiable) premise set entails every proposition, rendering the argument vacuously valid. This is a matter of formal logic definitions taught in introductory philosophy and mathematics, classifying it as common knowledge within the domain.
Receipt History
Challenge the receipt
Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work