well....ummm....problem...'validity' is a technical term. It means something necessarily follows from an argument...

"If you write a good song, everyone will like it....I wrote a good song, therefore everyone will soon be singing it"

..but the VALIDITY of an argument...that is, it's internal logic, has nothing to do with the 'truth' of the conclusion, as most of would agree, looking at the song example. The trouble is, IF the premises are incorrect, you can make almost anything follow. I might be quite mistaken that I wrote a good song, and VERY mistaken that being good guarantess success...but it can still be a 'valid' argument, if constructed correctly. On the other hand, the conclusion can be true, but have an INVALID argument leading to it. So it requires a lot of care to even discuss some things.

Look at this one...

A-"God is, by definition, an absolutely perfect being"
B-"An absolutely perfect being must have existence as one of it's attributes"
C-Therefore, God exists.

your mind 'should' tell you there is something wrong with that, but it is not easy to explain why to some people, though there are entire book written trying to do so! The problem is, even if God does exist, the argument is not sufficient to prove it.

What is happening when we post messages about 'truth' or 'validity'...etc..is that we may be using the words differently, and the very common phrase "true for ME" may satisfy some and cause others to wince.

*trying to think of an example that might illustrate this*
.....hmmm...If I say that wall is green, and you say it's gray, there may be no doubt YOU see gray, but...you may be colorblind. If I say that 27 readings with carefully calibrated instruments all show that wall reflects light in the 847-849 milli-angstrom range, then we 'should' agree to accept it, and all that remains is to decide what name to give that general range of colors.

So, applying a test in one's "practical experience" to see if it 'works' may be useful, and it may not. If a man who is red-green colorblind always stops his car correctly at the traffic light, he has applied a test, but he STILL may not know what color he is stopping at! And if he tries to choose a tie by trying to match the shade he thinks he saw at the traffic light, his friends may get a good laugh.

(gee...it sure is not easy to do this when I have not gone thru the details recently....the only thing I am trying to do is explain why **I** choose not to accept certain things that I have NEVER seen evidence of...and IF I 'see' something, to want some external verification/measurment/test of it.) It might be fun to read thru a few things like this page and see if any of it makes sense.

If my cousin Emmy says she sees ghosts, and no one else can see them, it is probable that Emmy IS having some kind of experience that is 'real' to her, but it is NOT certain that there was indeed a 'ghost' there. Some events are simply generated internally, from memories, fantasies, stress, injuries, hunger, brain tumors, or just plain 'wishes'.

Or....Emmy may be the only one who is 'open' enough to see ghosts!..but,please forgive me if I suspect otherwise, 'cause I can't see 'em!