Logic as Arbiter of Truth

[smoothmoniker]

Something has been sticking in my craw for the last few months, and I wanted to work it out.

In various other threads, the idea has been presented that you could make a logical case for anything, the implication being that a sound logical argument was not significant in determining something as true or false. The idea is sort of accepted as a given.

I don't think it should be. Logic is still the best arbiter of truth that we have. I don't think you can construct a sound logical argument in support of a determinable false conclusion without equivocating on terms.

Anyone care to try? State a determinable false conclusion, simple is better, and construct a sound logical argument that supports it.