Not really; an argument is valid if the conclusion is true only when the premises are valid. I believe the argument can be best constructed as follows:
If you think femboys are attractive, you’re gay
If you don’t think femboys are attractive, you’re gay
Therefore, you’re gay
Not only is this a valid argument because assuming the premises, the conclusion must be true, it’s formally valid because it follows the form
A -> B
~A -> B
Therefore B
And this argument is valid for all choices of A and B. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the conclusion being true.
My statement refers to the construction of ==> from truth tables as a logical gate:
Both (False ==> True) and (False ==> False) are True; everything can follow from false premises
(True ==> True) is True; A true premise always implies a true conclusion
(True ==> False) is False; you cannot infer a falsehood from a truth.
By counting the entries of the table, we see that if Y is True, then (X ==> Y) must always be True no matter what we substitute for X. The joke is that this means we assume foreknowledge of the reader being gay
Ah I see what you mean; you’re right. Though an argument being valid and an implication being true are different things, so I think we misunderstood each other’s meaning.
Any inference is valid if its conclusion is known to be true a priori
Not really; an argument is valid if the conclusion is true only when the premises are valid. I believe the argument can be best constructed as follows:
Therefore, you’re gay
Not only is this a valid argument because assuming the premises, the conclusion must be true, it’s formally valid because it follows the form
Therefore B
And this argument is valid for all choices of A and B. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the conclusion being true.
In other words, the argument is valid but not sound.
Yeah exactly
My statement refers to the construction of ==> from truth tables as a logical gate:
By counting the entries of the table, we see that if Y is True, then (X ==> Y) must always be True no matter what we substitute for X. The joke is that this means we assume foreknowledge of the reader being gay
Ah I see what you mean; you’re right. Though an argument being valid and an implication being true are different things, so I think we misunderstood each other’s meaning.