Main content

### Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 1

Lesson 1: Fundamentals- Fundamentals: Introduction to Critical Thinking
- Introduction to Critical Thinking, Part 1
- Introduction to Critical Thinking, Part 2
- Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments
- Deductive Arguments
- Fundamentals: Abductive Arguments
- Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
- Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Value
- Implicit Premise
- Justification and Explanation
- Normative and Descriptive Claims
- Fundamentals: Validity
- Fundamentals: Truth and Validity
- Validity
- Fundamentals: Soundness
- Soundness
- Fundamentals: Bayes' Theorem
- Fundamentals: Correlation and Causation

© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice

# Fundamentals: Soundness

Aaron Ancell discusses the philosophical concept of soundness. After reviewing validity, he defines soundness: an argument is sound when it is valid and has all true premises. He reviews a few examples of sound and unsound arguments, and he encourages you to develop sound arguments on your own.

Speaker: Aaron Ancell, Duke University.

Speaker: Aaron Ancell, Duke University.

## Want to join the conversation?

- So the philosopher must seek the soundness. What more must the philosopher looking for? How happen the process of to philosophize?(6 votes)
- what happens if you have a premise that you aren't sure of the truth value?(3 votes)
**1**. In such a situation you cannot know for sure*every time*whether the argument isor**sound**,**unsound***but*you can decide whether it'sor**valid**by inspecting the reasoning.**invalid****2**. You should probably do that anyway because if you should by any chance find that the argument is, then you've also indirectly figured out that it's**invalid**no matter whether the premises are true/false/I don't know.**unsound**(2 votes)

- So...Validity is necessary for soundness but not sufficient for soundness...right?(4 votes)
- Correct - the condition of the conclusion being true when all premises are true is also necessary.

Both of those conditions (A and B) combined together ( A + B = C) create a sufficient condition, and the definition, for soundness.(3 votes)

- The video is deleted but you can watch it on Youtube if you want to continue..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P0fUHUaZcs(2 votes)- Thanks for pointing this out! There was just a broken link but it has now been update. Apologize for any inconvenience.(3 votes)

- Okay, so is this a sound argument?

P1) I have hair on my head.

P2) Being bald means that you have no hair on your head.

C) Therefore, I am not bald.

Right? Because the premises are true, and they guarantee the truth of the conclusion. I just want to know whether or not I grasp this concept. Thanks!(3 votes)- Okay, how about this?

I have glasses.

I need my glasses to see.

Therefore, some people with glasses need them to be able to see.

Am I getting it?(2 votes)

- I suppose research would be important when making a sound arguments.

There's no way that you could say that whales are mammals without the help of a zoologist to help you classify exactly what makes a mammal, right?(1 vote)- Usually (but not always) to verify the truth of a statement, you at least need to know what the terms used in the statement actually mean. Like: mammal, whale or fur. For that, a dictionary will probably be sufficient. In particular, I think that the way we define "a whale" implies that all whales are mammals.

The other thing is knowing facts about real world, and that's we're zoologists and other scientists are really getting necessary. For example, knowing if the whales have fur, if they eat fish or how big they can get, requires actual observation of animals.

Thinking more broadly, I would say that arguments often don't relate to objects in real life, which can be easily named and classified (like: whales, mammals, fur), but to more abstract things, that need to be separately defined, as we don't really have a general agreement of what they mean (like: justice, consciousness, well-being, etc.). In such cases, the truth of the premises depends on the definitions that you choose to use, and might not be related to anything a scientist can analyze in physical world.

Mathematics is a great example: in mathematics everything follows from a very limited set of axioms (assumptions). There is no external research required to validate any premise, as the truth of any premise must follow from the axioms.(5 votes)

- P1) Apples are food.

P2) All food is edible.

P3) Anything that is edible, I am able to eat.

C) Therefore, I am able to eat apples.(2 votes) - I'd like to just point out that the grasshopper in the video was not wearing a top hat as I would have expected.(2 votes)
- Still thinking about Soundness at12:50pm ...

1)If elevated emotions ( love, joy,gratitude) have a higher frequency than base emotions ( anger, jealousy, and fear).

2) If on a higher frequency, you feel like energy.

3) And based feels like matter.

4) Then high energy takes less time to create change in your life?(1 vote)- Analyze premise 1 again...

Define elevated vs. Base. How can you categorize any given emotion, e.g. bittersweetness, pity, excitation. Also, explain the connection between emotion and "frequency". Frequency implies a wave form... Of what? Brain waves? Can you show that brain waves vary in frequency depending on emotion type? (I think not)

Premise 2...

What does energy feel like? How do you know?

Premise 3...

What does matter feel like? How is matter different different from energy objectively? Is this feeling truenfor every emotion? Is it more of a spectrum, or is it absolute? Does the feeling become modified depending on the emotion's intensity? Is there a way to have this feeling without the corresponding emotion? Are the feelings caused by the emotions, vice versa, or are they merely correlated?

Premise 4...

I don't even know how you got this from the rest of your premises...(2 votes)

- P1) Leo identifies as a Rogue.

P2) Leo enjoys playing games which have protagonists he can identify with.

P3) Dishonored has a protagonist who is a rogue.

C) Leo enjoys playing Dishonored.

Sound?(1 vote)- The language is a teeny bit ambiguous. Leo might enjoy Dishonored but never actually play the game. To be clearer, you could say 'Leo would enjoy playing Dishonored'. But otherwise good. And it is a good game! :-)(1 vote)

## Video transcript

(intro music) Hi, I'm Aaron Ancell. I'm a graduate student at Duke University, and in this video I'm going
to tell you about soundness, an important notion
that philosophers use to evaluate arguments. Let's start by looking back at validity. You should already know
what a valid argument is. If you don't, I encourage you
to watch the video on validity before watching the rest of this video. As you learned in the video on validity, an argument is valid if it is impossible for all of the premises to be true while its conclusion is false. For example, the following
is a valid argument. Premise (1): All cats are purple. Premise (2): Everything
that is purple is a person. Conclusion: Therefore,
all cats are people. This argument is valid,
because it is impossible for the premises to be true
while the conclusion is false. If all cats were purple, and
all purple things were people, then all cats would be people. Of course, not all cats are purple, and not all purple things are people. So even though this argument is valid, it's not really informative. It does not establish the
truth of its conclusion, since the premises are obviously false. Since the goal of an
argument is usually to show that some conclusion is true, we usually want arguments
that are more than just valid. This is where the notion
of soundness comes in. Soundness is a technical
notion in philosophy. What philosophers mean by "sound" is a bit different than
what people ordinarily mean when they say things like
"that was sound advice," or "she demonstrated sound judgement in making that decision." In philosophy, soundness, like validity, applies only to deductive arguments. In order to be sound, an argument must meet two requirements. First, the argument must be valid. All invalid arguments are unsound. Second, the premises of the
argument must all be true. Any argument that has even
a single false premise is unsound. To be sound, an argument
must meet both requirements. Let's go back to the example
with the purple cats. Is this argument sound? Let's check. The argument is valid, so it
meets the first requirement. But it definitely does not
meet the second requirement, since not all of its premises are true. In fact, both the premises are false. But not every unsound
argument has false premises. Consider another example. Premise (1): All dead parrots are dead. Premise (2): Parrots are not frogs. Conclusion: Therefore, frogs exist. Both premises of this argument are true, so this argument satisfies
the second requirement for being a sound argument. However, it doesn't satisfy
the first requirement, because the argument is invalid. The conclusion does not
follow from the premises. So this is an unsound argument, even though all the premises are true. Note that the conclusion is also true. But that doesn't matter. It's still an unsound argument. Here's another example. Premise (1): Ostriches cannot fly. Premise (2): All insects wear top hats. Conclusion: Therefore,
ostriches are insects. This argument fails to
meet both requirements. It isn't valid, and the
second premise is false. So this argument is definitely unsound. "Now," you might ask, "why should I care "whether an argument is sound?" The reason is that if we know
that an argument is sound, then we know that the
conclusion of that argument must be true. There is no way that an argument can meet both requirements for soundness and have a false conclusion. To meet the first requirement, an argument must be valid. And by definition, a valid argument is one where the
conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. And to meet the second requirement, the premises of the
argument must all be true. Putting the requirements
for soundness together, we can say that a sound argument is one where the
conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true, and where the premises are all true. This shows that the conclusion of
a sound argument cannot be false. It has to be true. Sound arguments are very useful. They enable us to establish
that things are true. Let's finish off by looking at an example. Premise (1): Whales do not have fur. Premise (2): Whales are mammals. Conclusion: Therefore,
not all mammals have fur. This argument is valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. And the premises are true,
so this is a sound argument, and the conclusion must be true. Give it a try. See if you can write a
sound argument of your own. Subtitles by the Amara.org community