Disarming Stove’s Paradox: In Defence of Formal Logic

The argument (d) ("All arguments with true premises and false conclusions are invalid.") is an argument with true premises and false conclusion. Therefore "(d) is invalid" seems to be formally valid. Thus presumably formal logic has to admit it as valid. But then formal logic finds itself in a bind. For the above argument is problematic and even paradoxical since it involves an internal logical contradiction. The paradox, aptly termed "Stove's paradox," is fully realized by demonstrating with the help of symbolic logic the contradiction within the argument. Then as the main part of this essays shows, the paradox is attacked by exposing the paradox's genesis. It is shown that by appeal to some not so obvious logical considerations regarding sound linguistic construction and usage, the above argument could not have been legitimately construction. For its construction must have involved either equivocation or hiatus of meaningfulness in the use of the symbol (d).