What is an argument from false premises?
Q: What is an argument from false premises?
A: An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results. It is based on untrue propositions that form part of the basis of a logical syllogism, so the conclusion drawn may also be wrong.
Q: Does the validity of an argument depend on whether its premises are true?
A: No, it does not. The validity of an argument depends on whether the conclusion follows from them, which is to say, on whether under the assumption that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well.
Q: How can you identify an error in an argument based on false premises?
A: A simple logical analysis will not reveal any errors in this type of argument since it assumes that all its premises are true. To identify any errors in this type of argument, one must establish if its premise(s) are actually true or not.
Q: Can a conclusion drawn from false premises still be true?
A: Yes, it can be possible for a conclusion drawn from false premises to still be true. For example, if someone makes a statement such as "If it's raining then the streets will be wet" and then observes that indeed it has recently rained and therefore concludes that the streets must have been wet - even though their original premise was incorrect - their conclusion could still turn out to be correct due to other factors (e.g., someone hosing down the street).
Q: What happens when a premise is poorly defined?
A: When a premise is poorly defined, this makes any conclusions drawn questionable because they may not accurately reflect reality or what was intended by whoever made up said premise in the first place. For example, consider Plato and Platypus Walk Into A Bar joke where an old cowboy assumes he's a lesbian simply because he spends his whole day thinking about women without taking into account other important aspects such as being homosexual or female - both criteria which he does not meet and therefore cannot qualify as being a lesbian according to most definitions/understandings of what constitutes one.
Q: Is there anything special about refuting arguments with false premises compared to those with normal logical errors?
A: Yes; arguments based on false premises can often be more difficult to refute than ones featuring normal logical errors since truthfulness needs to established for all parties involved before any refutations can take place effectively.
