[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

(1) All winged animals can fly.
(2) Horses have wings.
(3)Therefore, horses can fly.

True, if the assumptions are true. But not science.

One of your premises is wrong. You would have made a better argument if you had said:

(1) All winged animals can fly.
(2) Ostriches have wings.
(3) Therefore, ostriches can fly.

You would have proved your point -- that symbolic logic is not scientific -- by using accurate premises. No need to invent winged horses.

[dark_lord]

You would have proved your point -- that symbolic logic is not scientific -- by using accurate premises.

You misunderstood my point. My point was not that symbolic logic is not scientific. On the contrary, symbolic logic is a useful tool. My point was that if a premise is wrong, the conclusion is wrong. Thus, I deliberately used an inaccurate premise (Horses have wings) - to illustrate the point - that the tool, symbolic logic, will lead one astray if it is used incorrectly. Garbage in, garbage out.