Yup, then I got it backwards.

But, I only say the above the way I said because you can always be wrong about validity in terms of empirical truths whilst soundness remains within the realm of logical form.

I swear my book on philosophical analysis by Stanford stated it the way I stated in in our exchanges.

Edit: It's an old book.

I'll try to express the following without either valid or sound, because now every time I see those words in your post I wonder in which way they are being used, which just adds to the confusion!

Are you saying that an argument can have the correct logical form, but the premises can be false, and the conclusion false? Absolutely.

Are you saying that an argument can have the correct logical form, but the premises can be false, and the conclusion false? Absolutely. — PhilosophyRunner

I always thought that validity was a property of epistemological verification (old jargon seemingly).

I saw in old books the use of an argument both being sound and valid given the correct logical form and verification of epistemological validity of the premises and conclusion.

To be honest I have used it that way as well. I'm sure I have called a sound argument a valid one many times.

It just caused more confusion in this instance because it was a topic about logic form. Usually you can get away with it based on context of the discussion, without misunderstanding.

Yes, I would like to provide an example:

1. Worms and rats come out of the ground when it rains.
2. It rained.
3. Worms and rats are created by rain.

It might sound funny to you; but, people used to believe in such creationist arguments back in the days. But, the argument is clearly false nowadays, and only due to analyzing the validity of the premises and conclusion.

Yet, logically it seems sound, right?

Edit: Sound in the sense that the premises and conclusions follow...

1. Worms and rats come out of the ground when it rains.
2. It rained.
3. Worms and rats are created by rain. — Shawn

That argument is a case of wrong premises and a case of wrong logical form. But I think I understand what you are trying to say anyway, and agree so we can move on I think.

How does this tie back into your OP? As I understand your OP (correct me if I misunderstand), you are wondering why more posts on this forum are not about logic form. I think the reason is because the main disagreements are about the premises as per the point you were trying to make with the rat example. There is a lot more to explore with regards to premises, than with regards to logical form.

As I understand your OP (correct me if I misunderstand), you are wondering why more posts on this forum are not about logic form. — PhilosophyRunner

Not necessarily. It's simply an issue of too few people actually putting in the effort to make their arguments in logical form such as syllogistic logic or even symbolic logic...

I think the reason is because the main disagreements are about the premises as per the point you were trying to make with the rat example. — PhilosophyRunner

Well, I can't make a person present sound reasoning and as per our exchange this can manifest in arguments that can be valid but unsound to state it correctly. Yet, I'd we don't advocate for such presentation, then I suspect we're engaging in unsound reasoning, no?

There is a lot more to explore with regards to premises, than with regards to logical form. — PhilosophyRunner

I see you added this so I'll respond to it.

I believe that premises are always up for scrutiny, whereas unsound reasoning creates these long threads that actually need an appeal to authority to get them set in the right way ...

Not necessarily. It's simply an issue of too few people actually putting in the effort to make their arguments in logical form such as syllogistic logic or even symbolic logic... — Shawn

Fair enough, that is probably correct. I would add though, that syllogistic logic is not the only logic and much of science uses inductive logic. In those cases you simply could not state the issue in syllogistic logic.

And for the arguments about the premises, I don't see what help logical form will give. In your example above, if I disagree it is raining, then we will have a discussion about justification to say it is raining, that has nothing to do with the above logical form in your previous post.

And for the arguments about the premises, I don't see what help logical form will give. In your example above, if I disagree it is raining, then we will have a discussion about justification to say it is raining, that has nothing to do with the above logical form in your previous post. — PhilosophyRunner

Sure, I mean syllogistic logic isn't necessarily ideal; but, at least it (a premise) shouldn't be lumped into the argument as a truth if it does arise.

Logical form usually entails that the person knows what an argument looks like to begin with. So, I don't see the discussion fruitful without appeal to logical form.