What distinguishes a sound argument from an unsound one?

'What distinguishes a sound argument from an unsound one?" Usually you can tell the difference by who is making the argument. If it's me making the argument, you can pretty much bet it's sound. If someone else is arguing with me, it's statistically very likely -- within two standard deviations -- that their argument is unsound. Use this handy guide. Me, sound up. Someone arguing with me, sound down.

Ask: Is this argument provable? Is this argument functional? A sound argument can be both provable and functional, and it must be at least one or the other.

An argument is a set of statements or propositions put forward to support or justify a specific claim or viewpoint. It typically involves presenting evidence, reasoning, or persuasive elements to convince others of the validity or truth of the asserted position. Arguments are central to discourse, debate, and critical thinking, serving as a means to convey ideas and influence opinions.

Multiple data points that can be verified by actual proof and history to support the statement or hypothesis. Sources that are based strictly on proven mathematical or established biological known facts, not theories.

A valid argument is the one that wins. Some people get caught up in logic. Pfft. That's a novice's game. The winner steers the conversation. The steering can result from logic or something else.

A sound argument is one that is both valid and has true premises. Validity ensures that the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while truth of premises ensures the conclusion is reliable. In essence, a sound argument is not only logically sound but also built on accurate information.

Sound argument is when there is no argument but a discussion to solve things amicably. There is no much sound but a possibility of a solution. On the other hand, an unsound argument is a literally an argument that can never end. It's just a sound and never a solution.

Identifying fallacies involves recognizing errors in reasoning or argumentation. Here are some ways we can identify fallacies: 1. **Ad Hominem:** Attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. 2. **Straw Man:** Misrepresenting or distorting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. 3. **Circular Reasoning:** Restating the argument rather than providing evidence or support. 4. **Appeal to Authority:** Relying on the opinion of an authority figure instead of providing valid evidence. 5. **False Cause (Post Hoc):** Incorrectly asserting that one event caused another based on mere temporal succession. 6. **False Dichotomy:** Presenting only two options when more exist.

Art of Thinking clearly by Rolf Dobeli talks all about bias and fallacies in an intriguing way A must read book! This is the only way I tried to recognise mine as well others fallcies. Try it out! Everyone must read to understand people and their perspective ??????

Pulling from my diverse set of life experiences, I would contribute that sound argumentation is more valuable now than it has been for multiple generations. It's seeming that humans are losing the ability to think or process information for ourselves. The ability to offer sound argumentation to an environment, community, or culture could potentially preserve us from devolving into total 'idiocracy.' This fictional scenario may become more plausible without a significant mass of us developing the abilities to think critically, produce arguments based on facts/truth, and behave accordingly.

One of the major challenges in presenting a sound argument is when the other party isn't interested in one. This becomes one of the most frustrating experiences. All the sound bites, flourishes and quotable moments tend to derail the conversations and bury the actual argument. It becomes tempting to drop logical, coherent arguments in favor of rants. Such temptations must be avoided and actual intent of hiding behind smokes and screens to avoid an actual dialogue must be understood. Sticking to cool, calm logic is the best course of action in such scenarios. Keep cool keep calm and don't let the disruptors succeed.

A sound argument is based on facts and not suppositions. The facts are based on experiences and knowledge and in most instances are not emotional. Arguments should not be unreasonable and personal

We need to recognize that no matter how logical an argument is we all operate from some sort of emotion. One of the pillars of sales is that every sale is driven by emotion. Think about that. For example. You try and justify buying a Volvo XC90 because of safety but there are a multitude of other reasons that go into a large purchase like that. Some of these will be unquantifiable. The feeling of the seats. The way the leather smells. All of these may go into the decision to buy. However you will probably not be aware of that.