What's the big uproar of the "problem with the material conditional"?

We see many arguments that are valid but untrue. For example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. :. Socrates is mortal. Here we don t know the truth value of the first premise; for we will never know until the last man on earth had died. So we cannot ever know if this is a true and valid syllogism. This... show more We see many arguments that are valid but untrue. For example:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
:. Socrates is mortal.

Here we don t know the truth value of the first premise; for we will never know until the last man on earth had died. So we cannot ever know if this is a true and valid syllogism. This argument We see many arguments that are valid but untrue. For example:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
:. Socrates is mortal.

Here we don't know the truth value of the first premise; for we will never know until the last man on earth had died. So we cannot ever know if this is a true and valid syllogism or (modus Ponens). Same with the material conditional when the antecedent is necessarily false. So I don't see why we don't throw our hands up about every false valid argument. What say you? The problem with the material conditional may be vacuously valid, yet untrue.
3 answers 3