My only reason:. Because it's a required credit and I'll have to change my entire major of I can't make heads or tails of this garbage. Curse whomever decided to turn language into math!
Confusing example 6 at 3:00 "I will jump off if and only if you do" Makes it sound like "you will jump off if and only if I do" is the same equivalence - whereas they are subtly different. More accurate is _"I will jump off if and only if you have"_ or _"I will jump off if and only if I'm convinced you will do so"_ "If and only if" is sometimes a confusing concept for beginners, so we probably need a better example for it.
Dear TeachPhilosophy. Thank you for doing the work of recording this!! I am a teacher of philosophy at a high school, and I want to teach a much more robust unit on logic next time around. This is giving me a way to learn myself what I find difficult to learn on my own (I have never taken any classes on philosophy or learned logic from any teacher...all self-taught. And I was never good at math, so the symbolic part does not come as easily). Rather than play all your videos for my students, do you mind if I (having given you full credit and linked them to your videos) use the scope and sequence, and even some of the examples you use in my lessons?
I'm doing first year civil engineering, i've seen some of these symbols, such as the Tilde, wedge, and horseshoe in my maths textbook in year 12. When I first saw these questions as part of one of my assignments for university, I had ill-will towards it, as I would have preferred to do integral calculus as opposed to symbolic logic to enhance my logical thinking skills. Moreover, I felt that it was irrelevant to a maths course. But you clearly enjoy it, and that's enough motivation for me to want to enjoy and learn it. I'll smash your videos out instead of lecture slides :p. Sorry for the lengthy comment, cheers mate!
Honestly, I understood this video better than my class. I really hope, I got this material tho because I have a midterm tomorrow, and I am lost...BUT Thank You! because I kind of understand this better for this video!!!! I hope it helps me pass my classs....
Application: computer function. Modern or propositional or methematical or symbolic logic. In categorical logic, conventional symbols like letters are used to denote terms( either subject or predicate). For eg. If M stands for Men and m for mortal All M is m (where M and m are understand as terms). However in propositional logic they are used to denote sentences itself.
In the biconditional example, I will jump off a cliff if you do, isn't the last line, false false, not necessarily true, but ambiguous? It seems to me that something is only rendered true if it is carried out or there is evidence of it.
mo7sin i believe thats a form of russells paradox i think it says R = x or x not an element of x then R is an element of R if and only if (i don't use that symbol often but im sure the arrows are if and only if, i prefer the triple lines, R is not an element of R. so pretty much (if this is just another form of Russells paradox ) its trying to say can something be apart of a class that depends on its existance to be said class. like a box in a box out of a box etc etc. the analogue normally used is one that goes something like "in a village where everyone who DOESN'T shave themselves get shaved BY THE BARBER, does the barber shave himself or not. in this the barber would have to shave himself if he didn't shave himself but if he did shave himself then he'd be getting shaved by the barber, yet only people who don't shave themselves get shaved by the barber. so it's a "paradox"
Is this right? When I visualize a conditional, I think of it as being a prediction. For example, when one predicts something, we are basically saying that the consequent will be true. If, however, the antecedent is false, one has not said anything false yet! As long as the consequent is true, our prediction will be true. But, if our consequent is false, and the antecedent is false, our prediction cannot be disproven because the antecedent never occurred. In other words if both are false then it must be true.
Hi Conpa, yes, your last sentence is true. Think about this, "If you ace the exam, you will ace the course." This conditional statement could be true even if you make a B on the exam and ace the course.
Interesting that when I studied symbolic logic there was a negative result. My kids asked me, "Why is it when you and Dad argue you always win?" After that I was more gentle with my remarks. Why is symbolic logic not taught in high school?
I don’t know but it should be. I’m watching this as a senior and when I think about it I really wish stuff like this, philosophy and metaphysics stuff was optional to learn
The fact that formal logic or modern logic as you put it can not interpret why or how statements is the exact observational reason why it is not logically complete. Yet reality itself is logically complete. Therefore we need an improved system of logic more accurate to objective reality.
Does that matter, though? Furthermore, can you prove that it won't? The simple act of studying something and expanding your field of knowledge and understanding makes you better able to process complex ideas and to better communicate. How could that not be useful in any career?
I have a hard time understanding why we should symbolize everything when symbolic logic doesn't work for non truth claims -- the most important arguments are not truth claims. Also, by symbolizing every conjuction, you change and limmit the meaning of words to the ruled of symbolic logic. I mean, this seems so elementary that it's not even worth taking the course in the first place.
+Robbie Wilson Hi Robbie. Take this example. Is the following argument good, "If god exists, there is good in the world. There is good in the world. Therefore, God exists." Or this argument: "if John is happy then he is playing football. John is playing football, therefore, John is happy." Are these arguments good? If you studied formal logic well, then you immediately know these arguments are bad because they take this invalid/fallacious form "If a then b. b, therefore a. " The person who has not studied it spends a lot of time thinking about god, goodness, happy, football, etc.... and often make mistakes. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by truth claims. Most arguments do involve truth claims.... even opinion arguments because symbolic logic is about assuming the premises are true and seeing what follows. Symbolic logic has value, but I agree it is not necessarily the most important thing to study.... depends on your goals. If your goal is to be a logical jedi, study it as well as informal logic . If not, that's ok. check out my video on formal fallacies for a bit more on the value of formal logic.
Gabriel Warren Oh wow. I always approach things with the idea that an "argument must be valid, otherwise I can't be bothered with discussing it" type of mentality. Otherwise I always felt like we'd be getting into Mind body dualism and a whole bunch of other hubbub that may be logically sound, but otherwise ridiculous. I can't stand epistemology for this reason. Where I thrive is within Moral philosophy, where logic can take a back seat to "what just seems right or wrong." I love this because it usually gets under the skin of the purely logical, but ridiculous types (and what I mean by ridiculous is that while their arguments might be logically sound, they have no more evidence to support their argument then they do to disprove their argument -- which, in my mind, makes it completely worthless; especially if over hundreds or thousands of years nobody has done any better). I also wonder how this sort of formal logic is used in computer science. Do computers rely on only formal logic, or does code need to also do things that need proof, validity, in the sense that files and commands *must actually exist* in order for a program to *actually do something.* I bring computer science up because it is a field based on formal logic (boolean algebra and discrete math). But your comment really helped me see just how far off the mark I was. Really, thank you.
It's like shorthand. Maths does not need to be symbolized..you could use words. It would take longer to write though. Three plus four equals seven, is longer than 3+4=7. And it also requires you all speak the same language whereas symbols can be more international.
You jumped ahead and introduced parenthesis without explaing their use in proposition statements, I was hoping to show your video as an introduction to the course to my 11th grade students, but I think I am going to confuse them even more.
It has been 30 years since I attended a Symbolic Logic class. I find your style of explaining the layout refreshing.
Thank you for your work.
Bro you just saved me! Have a test in 2 hours. Learned more in these few min then the whole class
same
haven’t watched the video yet but you are giving me HOPEP
same HAHAH
Same comment in every videos 😛
I’m praying to do the same!
I've never understood symbolic logic until I watched this video. Thanks for the upload! Math with sentences... huh..
Madeline Mcmurtry Really? Because I'm good at this but horrible at math lol
Literally the only person who explains this well. Thanks for help!
Like if you learn more from TH-cam than from your s logic instructor
my logic instructor is o youtube
This
It's unfortunate!
8 years later and this video is just what I need :) Thank you!
This video clarifies and explains so much, thank you!
This video changed my life!!! Im here wondering why I haven't use youtube faster. everything makes sense now. Thank you
In what ways?
"why bother studying this" literally what i thought when i got to this LOL
+Hucking Fot lol, yes, it has its limits. It is useful.... sometimes... and depending on one's interests. :)
My only reason:. Because it's a required credit and I'll have to change my entire major of I can't make heads or tails of this garbage. Curse whomever decided to turn language into math!
Super tutorial. Thank you, professor!
Thank you for the lessons, just terrific!
Nice presentation style: homey yet professional
Confusing example 6 at 3:00
"I will jump off if and only if you do"
Makes it sound like "you will jump off if and only if I do" is the same equivalence - whereas they are subtly different. More accurate is
_"I will jump off if and only if you have"_ or
_"I will jump off if and only if I'm convinced you will do so"_
"If and only if" is sometimes a confusing concept for beginners, so we probably need a better example for it.
Thank you so much for this! I'm gonna get through this semester cause of your lecture here.
If a philosopher ran for president
Then I would vote for them.
Plato lol
Not if it was my college philosophy professor.
P🧲V ?
I'm so glad I came across this
Dear TeachPhilosophy. Thank you for doing the work of recording this!! I am a teacher of philosophy at a high school, and I want to teach a much more robust unit on logic next time around. This is giving me a way to learn myself what I find difficult to learn on my own (I have never taken any classes on philosophy or learned logic from any teacher...all self-taught. And I was never good at math, so the symbolic part does not come as easily). Rather than play all your videos for my students, do you mind if I (having given you full credit and linked them to your videos) use the scope and sequence, and even some of the examples you use in my lessons?
Sure, good luck and I'm glad it helped. :)
Thank you so much for this video!! This made everything so much clearer than in my classes rip
Yes, Great my favorite subject is philosophy & thank u so much sir, well u teach.
I'm doing first year civil engineering, i've seen some of these symbols, such as the Tilde, wedge, and horseshoe in my maths textbook in year 12. When I first saw these questions as part of one of my assignments for university, I had ill-will towards it, as I would have preferred to do integral calculus as opposed to symbolic logic to enhance my logical thinking skills. Moreover, I felt that it was irrelevant to a maths course. But you clearly enjoy it, and that's enough motivation for me to want to enjoy and learn it. I'll smash your videos out instead of lecture slides :p.
Sorry for the lengthy comment, cheers mate!
I taught both in college. How can integral calculus teach you symbolic logic?
@@ellenhetlandfenwick8129 ^^
Thank you! this was so fun to learn
Thank you so much for this video!!!
hi should I always use bracket after tilde (~) in any element? thank you
Thanks for saying "tildee"- that's the way I learned it years ago. Now it's just weird to say "til-duh". ;)
lol, I laughed my ass out when you giggled for no reason.
Great video
This video saved my life
OMG my thought exactly loool. why professors don't teach it this way tho??
Mélissa Pennartz well said
Good stuff!
Thank you sir May God bless you and be with you ❤️❤️❤️
Hi Paul, I like your lectures. Would you make a video about first principles thinking?
Honestly, I understood this video better than my class. I really hope, I got this material tho because I have a midterm tomorrow, and I am lost...BUT Thank You! because I kind of understand this better for this video!!!! I hope it helps me pass my classs....
Please explain "symbolise arguments" mentioned in the very first slide above.
Such a helpful video!
Thank you for that motivating intro.
you have a really soothing voice
Nice explanation really this is rare!
I'm a philosophy student from India.😊😊🇮🇳
Excellent video
This stuff to me is pretty fascinating
I still didn’t get how and why did you apply a bracket during symbolisation at 06:12 and how did a curl come in the 3 proposition
just wanted to what symbolic logic is after starting reading foundation books.now i am kinda interested.
This is an excellent explanation. Thank you.
Thanks, Vince. :)
Thanks! YOURE SO GOOD AH
Fun and Challenging
Hell yeah it is.
Are all/most imperative and interrogative sentences unable to be represented in logic?
👍👍👍thanks a lot Bro.
May I download these videos for offline use? My internet access is limited.
This is so helpful. Thanks 🤍
Fast class, just the way I like it!
👏🏻 thank you sir
Awesome intro.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it. :)
this is a great video but my class is using different symbols
This guy kinda sounds like Toby from The Office hahahaah
+Harley Quinn Thanks haha
Application: computer function.
Modern or propositional or methematical or symbolic logic. In categorical logic, conventional symbols like letters are used to denote terms( either subject or predicate). For eg. If M stands for Men and m for mortal
All M is m (where M and m are understand as terms). However in propositional logic they are used to denote sentences itself.
In the biconditional example, I will jump off a cliff if you do, isn't the last line, false false, not necessarily true, but ambiguous? It seems to me that something is only rendered true if it is carried out or there is evidence of it.
Categorical logic can be strongly useful for argumentation theory tho! But as always, symbolic logic is better ;)
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉thank you
Compound statements slide needs to be changed to "S and P, S and P". To honor two propositions.
Overall great video.
Unless you are speaking in Modern logic? That slide is confusing
how do you read: Let R = {x|x ∉ x}, then R ∈ R ⇔ R ∉ R ??
mo7sin i believe thats a form of russells paradox
i think it says R = x or x not an element of x then R is an element of R if and only if (i don't use that symbol often but im sure the arrows are if and only if, i prefer the triple lines, R is not an element of R. so pretty much (if this is just another form of Russells paradox ) its trying to say can something be apart of a class that depends on its existance to be said class. like a box in a box out of a box etc etc. the analogue normally used is one that goes something like "in a village where everyone who DOESN'T shave themselves get shaved BY THE BARBER, does the barber shave himself or not. in this the barber would have to shave himself if he didn't shave himself but if he did shave himself then he'd be getting shaved by the barber, yet only people who don't shave themselves get shaved by the barber. so it's a "paradox"
never liked a video so fast
What is the name of the speaker please?
good from nepal
This is a really helpful video, but the symbols are entirely different from the ones being used in the class I am taking so it is throwing me off.
How would you write "Some S are P" and "Some S are not P" using symbolic logic?
logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/tutorial4/Tut4-02.htm :)
r u an angel
Is this right? When I visualize a conditional, I think of it as being a prediction. For example, when one predicts something, we are basically saying that the consequent will be true. If, however, the antecedent is false, one has not said anything false yet! As long as the consequent is true, our prediction will be true. But, if our consequent is false, and the antecedent is false, our prediction cannot be disproven because the antecedent never occurred. In other words if both are false then it must be true.
Hi Conpa, yes, your last sentence is true. Think about this, "If you ace the exam, you will ace the course." This conditional statement could be true even if you make a B on the exam and ace the course.
Symbolic logic also helps understand all natural sciences i.e. biology, chemistry and physics
Interesting that when I studied symbolic logic there was a negative result. My kids asked me, "Why is it when you and Dad argue you always win?" After that I was more gentle with my remarks. Why is symbolic logic not taught in high school?
I would call that a positive result, rather than a negative one. :)
I don’t know but it should be. I’m watching this as a senior and when I think about it I really wish stuff like this, philosophy and metaphysics stuff was optional to learn
If I knew this was a part of philosophy I wouldn't have taken it
Lol
I WANT TO BE AN ITERPRETER IN TIV LANGUAGE IN BENUE STATE
The fact that formal logic or modern logic as you put it can not interpret why or how statements is the exact observational reason why it is not logically complete. Yet reality itself is logically complete. Therefore we need an improved system of logic more accurate to objective reality.
This video is why they should not remove the like/dislike ratio
If and only is seems like it should be just called if, and the if that is called if seems like it shouldn't exist
"John Denver is a great pilot" seems false...
It can't be; John Denver was great at everything... my hero.
instead of giving simple to undertand statements, use S, P, C, D
walla! they become hard.
but why though?
is this just learning how to use variables?
My teacher just throws questions at us and doesn’t teach us
You sound like James Woods.
Im sorry this is so confusing. I though V was inclusive disjunction and/or no just or
Who else is just watching this for fun lol
Thanks, Jack. Many people compare me to Robin Williams and other incredible entertainers.
Fish = space x donkey + God - my sister / dog = germ (what) & lizard
+MirkAssassin 010010
çakırdan gelen olursa bi işaret bıraksın
XD "tildee"
Yes, *"tildee"*!
I will never use this in my career.
Does that matter, though? Furthermore, can you prove that it won't? The simple act of studying something and expanding your field of knowledge and understanding makes you better able to process complex ideas and to better communicate. How could that not be useful in any career?
You always do this in your mind. Or, better said: Your mind does this for you.
Too fast
I have a hard time understanding why we should symbolize everything when symbolic logic doesn't work for non truth claims -- the most important arguments are not truth claims. Also, by symbolizing every conjuction, you change and limmit the meaning of words to the ruled of symbolic logic. I mean, this seems so elementary that it's not even worth taking the course in the first place.
+Robbie Wilson Hi Robbie. Take this example. Is the following argument good, "If god exists, there is good in the world. There is good in the world. Therefore, God exists." Or this argument: "if John is happy then he is playing football. John is playing football, therefore, John is happy." Are these arguments good? If you studied formal logic well, then you immediately know these arguments are bad because they take this invalid/fallacious form "If a then b. b, therefore a. " The person who has not studied it spends a lot of time thinking about god, goodness, happy, football, etc.... and often make mistakes. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by truth claims. Most arguments do involve truth claims.... even opinion arguments because symbolic logic is about assuming the premises are true and seeing what follows. Symbolic logic has value, but I agree it is not necessarily the most important thing to study.... depends on your goals. If your goal is to be a logical jedi, study it as well as informal logic . If not, that's ok. check out my video on formal fallacies for a bit more on the value of formal logic.
teachphilosophy Thanks for that. I wrote my post quite a long time ago and I've come to understand formal logic a lot more since then.
Gabriel Warren Oh wow. I always approach things with the idea that an "argument must be valid, otherwise I can't be bothered with discussing it" type of mentality.
Otherwise I always felt like we'd be getting into Mind body dualism and a whole bunch of other hubbub that may be logically sound, but otherwise ridiculous. I can't stand epistemology for this reason. Where I thrive is within Moral philosophy, where logic can take a back seat to "what just seems right or wrong." I love this because it usually gets under the skin of the purely logical, but ridiculous types (and what I mean by ridiculous is that while their arguments might be logically sound, they have no more evidence to support their argument then they do to disprove their argument -- which, in my mind, makes it completely worthless; especially if over hundreds or thousands of years nobody has done any better).
I also wonder how this sort of formal logic is used in computer science. Do computers rely on only formal logic, or does code need to also do things that need proof, validity, in the sense that files and commands *must actually exist* in order for a program to *actually do something.*
I bring computer science up because it is a field based on formal logic (boolean algebra and discrete math).
But your comment really helped me see just how far off the mark I was. Really, thank you.
+Robbie Wilson No one is claiming that everything needs to be symbolized.
It's like shorthand. Maths does not need to be symbolized..you could use words. It would take longer to write though. Three plus four equals seven, is longer than 3+4=7. And it also requires you all speak the same language whereas symbols can be more international.
yikes and only yikes
Jesus is calling you.
Pls Repent now.
Liked your presentaion; did not like the color scheme of your tables. They were hard to read. I give you an A minus.
You jumped ahead and introduced parenthesis without explaing their use in proposition statements, I was hoping to show your video as an introduction to the course to my 11th grade students, but I think I am going to confuse them even more.