All Cats are Green

1) All cats are green. 2) All things green have paws. 3) Therefore all cats have paws.

With that being true, can we then apply that truth to another argument? In law, we apply the outcomes of past cases to current cases to validate our argument.

1) All cats have paws. 2) All things with paws have fur. 3) Therefore, all cats have fur.

If we assume the premises valid then the arguments are true. But can we question the premise? Or is that just another argument?

So in the first argument: “1) All cats are green. 2) All things green have paws. 3) Therefore all cats have paws”, we could question the second premise. So if all things green may not have paws, now we can no longer accept that all cats have paws. Thus, we have voided our second argument by arguing a premise of the first argument.

Do arguments grow and change as our knowledge of a subject grows? Can something that is true today be false tomorrow? So what is truth? Is it forever and unchanging? Or does it grow and change as we do? Was the statement “the earth is flat” true until proven false? Or was it always false?