Jurisprudence and logic: Is it a necessary criterion for a claim to be declared sound that there be no evidence to the contrary as to its soundness?

Question

So, I've been generating various arguments (such as related to the synthesis of legal arguments), and I have been doing my best to figure out how to declare that a particular claim is not sound. For instance, I have a motion that I have been working on to resolve any past disputes with a previous landlord.

I have a motion, and the important parts of it are as follows:

1. That there is a motion that I'm making, namely MOTION TO DISMISS ANY ONE OR MORE BELIEFS THAT YOU MAY HAVE HAD AND/OR HAVE THAT I HAVE COMMITTED A TRANSGRESSION AGAINST YOU.

2. That there are one or more necessary or sufficient criteria that need to be satisfied in order for the motion to be successful.

3. That the one or more necessary or sufficient criteria that need to be satisfied in order for the motion to be successful -- have been satisfied.

Earlier today, I had the view that the sole necessary criterion to fulfill for the motion to be successful was described as the following:

Any grounds that may have been used to support any one or more beliefs that you may have had and/or have that I have committed a transgression against you have not, cannot, nor will be sound, whereby it is presumed that for any such grounds to be considered sound that it is required that such grounds can be known as sound in order to ensure that a wrongful declaration of a claim based on such grounds does not occur, whereby it is presumed that it is bad to wrongfully declare a claim based on unsound grounds as sound because if and when such declaration is found out to be unsound, such finding may lead to adverse consequences of some sort for the declarant.

This has been based on my view in order to declare that a claim is not sound, I have to argue that its premises ("grounds") are not sound. And, in relation to that, I think most people would agree that a claim is not sound if its grounds are not true/sound.

From the Wikipedia article on soundness, the following is claimed:

an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true.

From what I have figured out today, that's an argument that argues for the sufficiency (or what mobocratically might be considered sufficient criteria to determine if an argument is sound) of what it means for an argument to be sound.

However, I've been focusing on what the necessary criteria are in order to declare a claim as sound. And, based on what I reason, at the least, the sole necessary criterion is that no one can prove the contrary.

Thus, I have been thinking that what I need to do in relation to my motion is that in order to declare that my motion is sound that the necessary criterion for it to be successful has been fulfilled, namely that no one has, can, nor will be able to prove to any one or more persons that my motion is not sound.

Relative to the Münchhausen trilemma, it might be argued that it is not possible to "prove" that a claim is sound or not sound. From my study of the Münchhausen trilemma, to be able to prove something is true to an audience is to be able to get that audience to infallibly know that the something being proved is true. In relation to an argument being sound, it might be questioned "How do you know its true that the claim for an argument must be valid and its premises true in order for it to be considered sound?"

A person cannot prove such nor prove such in order to know such. So, I think social contract theory is in play, whereby persons agree (a mob is formed to agree) that the paradigm for considering an argument is sound is that its claim is valid and that its premises are true: I think these are at least mobocratically sufficient grounds for declaring an argument as sound but such grounds do not necessitate that such argument is sound, whereby it is presumed that if there is no evidence to the contrary that an argument is sound, then the argument may necessarily be considered sound.

1. Am I making sense?
2. Does anyone think it follows that the necessary criterion for a claim to be declared as sound that there be no evidence to the contrary?

In relation, then, to what I think the reason that my necessary criterion is fulfilled is the following: (1) No one knew, knows, nor will able to know what the one or more sufficient or necessary criteria – were and/or are and/or will be – that were and/or are and/or will be required to be satisfied in order to satisfy such one or more necessary or sufficient criteria in order to prove to any one or more persons that my motion is not sound nor (2) has, can, nor will such one or more necessary or sufficient criteria be communicated to anyone.

Update:

Here is a link to my motion document I have worked on.

Answer 1

The presence of evidence to the contrary for a thesis doesn’t carry as a logical consequence that the thesis is untrue, but it might affect some of the arguments presented in support or defence of that thesis.

For example, suppose a thesis is presented solely on the Holmesian principle that all alternative possibilities are rendered impossible by the presented evidence. Then an additional evidence piece challenging this possibility opens up the important, salient point that at least one article presented as evidence cannot be what it is claimed to be, casting doubt on the original argument.

Answer 2

My name is Luke, there are four letters in the name 'Luke', and I can deduce that there are four letters in my name from those two premises; it is a sound argument. However, there is lots of evidence to the contrary that my name isn't Luke. e.g. I have linked to email accounts that have another name, have used other names on stack in the past. Though you may take my word for it that this evidence should be taken as inconclusive, it is not falsified, and my name is Luke.

Is it a necessary criterion for a claim to be declared sound that there be no evidence to the contrary as to its soundness?

That is one reason (evidence contrary to the premises) that deductive arguments are rarely certainly sound or have certainly true conclusions.

Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content. However, according to the dominant understanding among logicians, the validity or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely by its logical form.

Asserting something is sound is to assert its validity and the truth of its premises. The question is often how you prove the premises, which varies.

---

Anyway, I looked at your paper and it's unclear what you are trying to do. You have achieved nothing but a restatement of ignorance and/or skepticism (you don't "know" your motion is wrong?) into jargon I'm not sure you understand. You might want to look into the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven as false

More generally, you shouldn't really dismiss evidence just because it surfaces after you have made your mind up (submitted a motion). Doing so is not philosophy.