We need to include this when we discuss logic:


"By definition, a sound argument is one that has good form (i.e., is logically valid) AND good content (i.e., is based on true premises). A sound argument produces conclusions that are always true, and which follow necessarily from their premises (Johnson & Blair, 1983; Kelley, 1994); as such, the ability to construct sound arguments is one of the hallmarks of rational thought. It is surprising, therefore, that a systematic investigation of how people evaluate the soundness of arguments has not been carried out. "

This helps to keep straight the concepts involved when discussing different types of premises and can avoid talking past one another about the status of data.

Active science is essentially a process of trying to keep arguments valid, while continuously re-evaluating the truth of their premises. Some premises, by their very nature, cannot (so far) be tested as to truth. This is why we cannot evaluate opinions, scientific OR religious, about the origin of existence itself.
   This is why I often post the formulation, "From false premises, anything follows." It in no way tells us what IS true: it merely points out that IF we find contradictory assertions regarding some idea, in science OR religion..(or in psychology or any other 'soft' science)... we should suspect that there are **some** false premises involved.
This seems simple enough when stated, but it is easily forgotten when we lose track of our own assumptions.