system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Do any philosophers challenge the idea that an argument that's both valid and sound is necessarily true?

One of the first things I learnt in philosophy was that *validity* means the conclusion must follow from the premises, and *soundness* means an argument is both valid and that its premises are true, but I want to know if there are any philosophers who accept that an agument can be valid and sound and yet, in some sense, not true.   


I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of Gettier problems and those who think that you can have a belief that is both justified and true, and yet still not have knowledge. Do any philosophers think something analgous to this exists for validity and soundness? It doesn't seem plausible to me, but then there's a lot of philosophy that also doesn't seem intuitive to me and yet still seems to be right.  


Thank you, lovely people.
gpt
I don't think so since, in a sense, validity and soundness are technical terms within the field of logic. They aren't broad concepts like "justice" or "goodness" that can be interpreted intuitively, they've been defined in a very specific way for a very specific purpose. Let's take the definition of soundness:

*An argument is sound if and only if it is a valid inference with premises that are true.*

This means that the conclusion of a sound argument is true by the very definition of soundness. There's no wiggle room in that definition; if we don't think it's right then we have simply changed the definition of soundness or the concepts that comprise it.