Why can an invalid argument with false premises lead to a true conclusion?

Question

Why can an invalid argument with false premises lead to a true conclusion?

Answer 1

only if truth is relative, and it isn't

Answer 2

Here is an argument;

All ravens are black.

That is a raven

Therefore, it is black.

Here is another argument

All ravens are white

That is a raven

Therefore it is black.

From this example a false premise can not lead to a true conclusion which from strict logical rules, despite the fact that ravens are for the most part black, the fact that the premise of the second argument is false, makes the conclusion fase as well, despite the well known fact that ravens are black.  See, that is why we need science; logic leads to truth, but it does not lead to facts.

Answer 3

Arguments are all about validity and invalidity, not primarily about truthfulness or the lack thereof. As long as an argument follows the laws of formal logic, it is valid. In order to be sound, however, the premises and the conclusion need to be true. But validity usually is differentiated from soundness. Hence, this argument is invalid with false premises and yet leads to a true conclusion:

1) All humans are immortal (false)

2) Socrates is not a human (false)

3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal (invalid step, but the conclusion is true)

Number three should contain a denial, but it is still true.

Answer 4

for the same reason you can totally fudge a golf shot, have it go off a tree bounce down the cart path back off another tree, and still get a hole in one.

luck.

Answer 5

Because two wrongs really do make a right.

Answer 6

Because if  an argument doesn't have to be valid, it can lead anywhere at all, including conclusions that happen to be true. There is no (valid) logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

The following argument is extreme and completely silly (for which read invalid), but the conclusion is true:

1) Sheep go 'Moo'

2) 2+2 = 5

THEREFORE 3) The sun rises every morning  

Answer 7

because what people call false premises can really be just a strange perspective, and when it's an invalid argument, it can be thinking outside of the box.

Answer 8

Because sometimes it plays out to be a double negative.

Answer 9

Your answer is found in what Happy Hiram says for his 10 points.

My two points only add to his answer.

In a conversation it only appears that way.  The reality is that truth itself is not founded on invalid arguments or false premises.  This is why men sometimes stumble upon the truth.  The truth stands by itself.  And is why a stopped clock is right twice a day.  It is always there but men do not recognize it.  A time will come when they will.

Answer 10

I always figure out my problem if I don't think about it. It just comes to me. But what happens in your case is that some points that never got brought up in your first argument make their way into your new one. Like the old saying, "You gotta think outside the box."

Answer 11

Because even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Even a compulsive liar stumbles upon a truth once in a while. Same for a false or true argument.