[who_would_fardels_bear]

Your definition of valid comes from a dictionary, i.e. an authority. So you're just as guilty as I am in that regard.

Scientists get to choose what terminology they use to discuss scientific topics among themselves. Philosophers get to do likewise. Every philosophy class I have taken and every source I have looked up has the same definition for 'valid'. A definition which differs from yours.

I choose the definition generally agreed on by the entire philosophical community rather than a single individual who now appears to have some sort of axe to grind.

Are you upset at the direction philosophy has taken? Even modern day Thomists would agree with the distinction between valid and sound that I have merely repeated. Here is an example of a tenured Thomist philosopher working his way through an argument that he quickly determines is valid, but requires additional reasoning to show its soundness:

Edward Feser

[Olog-hai]

Fallacious attempt at turnaround. Dictionaries hold definitions of words, not redefinitions, and are not authorities in the sense of argumentum ad verecundiam but references.

Not to mention that repeatedly doubling down on the aforementioned logical fallacy still will not remove its fallaciousness.