IP's definition of logic reminds me of the way apologists often treat definitions - As if they are reality-altering magic spells. Or to put it more charitably, as if they are prescriptive and not descriptive. They also do this with many other things, such as the laws of physics.
When Kirk Cameron says at 0:54 "circumnavigate the intellect" all I can think is he must be the Marco Polo of intellect. The word I hope he was intending to use is "circumvent". He should learn English before he tries to overturn hundreds of years of human achievement in science.
The wording apart, he still is saying what amounts to "shut off your critical thinking and the logical explanation goes away and MY explanation makes sense again". Which even if he had more to base his claims on would still be a horrible way to justify accepting them as he does not appeal to evidence but to ignoring the justified skepticism about these claims...
to be fair, he doesn't need to learn english in particular to overturn science. being able to use any different language properly would do the trick, too. to be honest, as long as he doesn't release a scientific paper with an error like that and insist on keeping it in when it's pointed out in peer review, and as long as the listener properly understands what he's talking about, it's not really a world-changing problem. to be pedantic and use your own argument against you, you're thinking of maggellan, not marco polo... learn history :D i'm sorry for having to point this out, i actually agree his slip of the tongue was quite funny.
'Circumvent' has a negative connotation. 'Circumnavigate' sounds similar and does not set off the 'bullshit' alarms as easily. Remember, this shit is carefully scripted.
@@xaenon Of course it sets of bullshit alarms... for everybody who knows what words MEAN. circumnavigate is not the proper vocabulary for what he wanted to say. And if circumvent has a negative connotion? Fantastic, his whole statement was abjectly repulsive.
@@Ugly_German_Truths It seems we agree, at least, on what he wanted people to hear - 'will yourself to ignore the rational part of your mind in order to believe this bullshit I'm laying on you.' That is, actually, the core of religion when they tell you to have 'faith'. The disagreement we have seems to arise from the intent of the words he actually used. I'm pointing out that with regards to vocabulary, 'circumnavigate' is indeed wrong in this context, but again, these things are carefully scripted, rehearsed, and staged. Sometimes, to get the more desirable effect on those listening to the spiel, the 'incorrect' word serves better than the correct one. 'Circumvent' is bad in this context. It has a 'dishonest' meaning. Misusing the word 'circum-navigate' is more neutral, in addition to which it sounds similar and has two more syllables, allowing it to sound more 'impressive'. It might be a simple mistake. That's certainly a possibility, but I don't think it was. As I said, carefully scripted, rehearsed, staged. Just like any other product, the language you use (or misuse) is important if you want to sell it. In some contexts, 'I ain't got no X' might deliver a message better than saying 'I don't have any X', even though the former is a grammatical nightmare. I don't pretend to be an English professor, but I do know that HOW you say something is sometimes more important than saying it 'correctly'. All that said, I agree that his spiel was repugnant on more than one level. The believers will eat that shit up. Those who think about what he said will realize that he's a lying, dishonest bastard, regardless of vocabulary. We good?
I think at this point, you can decisively end any argument with IP by simply saying "Dude, you do not even know what logic is. Go read a book and educate yourself. Then we'll talk."
@TDV you dont have to take him on word, you can check the truth of his statement yourself. Anyway @anticitizenx: i thought you had something to say at 13:10 :D you have a good video explaining an option on how to deal with that problem.
AntiCitizenX ••• Dude, do you not even know what Logic is? Do you not realize what Marty has done with this video? ••• Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet they haven't taught the science of Logic in those same State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
William Springer haha did you just seriously ask the man who’s content is 2/3s philosophy of science and has multiple primers of logic as well as hours of meditations on logic if he knows what logic is?
When you constantly have to ask yourself whether this person is incompetent or lying, then he's lying. Honest people would admit their mistakes, correct errors, and then learn from that experience over time. IP never does this. He just repeats the same old story, no matter how wrong it has been shown to be. That's lying, in my book.
@@jirihavel9766 Pretending to be an expert in something you obviously have not studied in any detail is dishonest. Clinging to that alleged expertise when qualified people tell you that you're wrong is even more dishonest.
I like to think that the relationship that grammar has to reality is the same as the relationship that logic has to reality. Our enthymematic descriptions of reality rely on proper grammatical structure, just as our syllogistic descriptions of reality rely on valid logical structure; but in both cases, these structures are oriented with respect to our *descriptions* of reality rather than reality itself. Ironically, the apologist who makes use of transcendental arguments in which logic plays the role of some entity that maintains reality's structure, is employing the fallacy of reification. great work as always Marty
Exactly. Grammar is about the choice and ordering of words in sentences to convey meaning, just as logic is about the choice and ordering of statements to convey an internally consistent idea.
@@Arrakiz666 Gordon Freeman is on youtube!? _I kid, I am a big fan of ACX, and his handle always makes me think of the level of the same name in Half-Life 2 :)_
I hate when I'm not sure I understand something fully (and hate admitting it almost as much). Am I in the ballpark if I take it that you're talking about confusing symbol with referent?
On the other hand, they DO kind of have a point that one might be able to think of logic as our description of the way that existence 'behaves' for lack of a better word. That is to say, we observe that existence is such that things are what they are, are not what they are not, and aren't neither or both. In that albeit trivial sense, I think it could be fair to think of classical logic as being in some sense descriptive of the nature of reality.
I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning. - Aleister Crowley
Like Ben Franklin, a horribly unsuitable person to emulate but nonetheless a person with many words of wisdom. Seriously Ben Franklin was Scary, duplicitous, and a Harvey Weinstien of his Day. But history is written by the Victors and he was very famous for self-publishing, practically inventing the American hegeomonic media landscape.
@Diogenes TheDog I'd love to think they do but they haven't been exactly "protecting us from all Domestic threats" if those threats are lying to Americans From the seats of Government.
ray Williams ••• Do you have any idea how disgracefully Marty has eviscerated the science of Logic here ? Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of Logic for more than a century? The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
10:20 you're right, there is no r in Gödel, but there is an o with an umlaut, which is pronounced very similarly to the letter r. Pronouncing it like "Goddle" is just incorrect.
Hey, 2 years later I am going to be that dick who says that Marty being a natve Swedish speaker knows how to say ö and does it quite well in his pronunciation of Gödel.
I remember seeing that video. I had many (some which were surprisingly fruitful) conversations about logic on that video. But somehow magically all my comments and conversations have disappeared. When normally when I visit an old video I once commented on, they are on the top of the page. What could have happened to them? I wonder.
OnePieceNation I have suffered similar at the dishonest hands of IP. Sometimes I could see my comments disappear in hours, and a few times within minutes. IP is profoundly dishonest in my experience. The final straw was when I provided a rational criticism of the standards of his scholarship on one of his videos. I was proclaimed to be a troll and banned, with all my commentary disappearing moments later.
Plastic Vision ••• Well, I don't know about this guy IP, but Marty suckered you guys pretty good. He absolutely gutted the science of propositional logic in this video. Never even bothered to mention the words "sound" or "cogent". Do you know Why ? For the same reason that the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. Dumbing down the masses is the Name of the game . The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
Speaking of logic, I once had a discussion that was so heated, I get wound up whenever the topic of Math vs Logic is brought up. I explain to this one guy how logic is a form of math, because he couldn't fathom the fact that logic was being taught in a math major when I used to be in college. He kept repeating his weak point that that's not the case because his "computer science professor says so", that "math is not a requirement to get into programming", and that I shouldn't doubt him because I'm not a professor. He never explained how they're two completely separate things. First of all, there's a reason why the boolean value "true" is called a "nonzero" value in regards to programming. In binary, "true" is "1", and "false" is 0 (in fact, it's the language computers speak in). "False" being zero, and "true" being any number that's not zero (hence the phrase "nonzero"). "Or" is an additive word, whereas "and" is a multiplicative word. "True and False" returns "False" the same way as "1 x 0" returns zero. "(True and True) or False" returns "True" the same way as "(4 x 2) + 0" returns a number that isn't zero. Both the statements "True != False" and "10 != 5" return True. With all these observations about the similarities between basic, numeric operations and logistic operations, I can safely say that logic is, in fact, a fucking form of math. And I wouldn't bat an eye if logic was being taught under a math major (in fact, it's required in order to properly prove theorems). I get that some colleges are not designed the same, but the argument that "logic is not in the math major in my college, therefore it's not a form of math" is bullshit given the above reasons.
Eltro920 ••• Professor Peter Kreeft claimed in his logic text "Socratic Logic" that he had never heard anyone but a professional philosopher use mathematical logic in a discussion or debate . Why do you suppose that is ? Is mathematical logic basically useless in discussion or debate ? And if it is , what good is it to anyone attempting to solve real-world problems , or understand real -world deception? The science of propositional logic is obviously more useful in the real world, and that's probably why it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
Somebody has to replace William Lane Craig after he retires. IP was in the military so I hope he uses the education grants to get the dual-PhD status that WLC has.
That's only half the solutions to the equation. -i is the second. And yes, complex numbers are bloody well understood. For instance they are part of the basis for all digital communication.
@@chbu7081 true, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. i assume morten kristiansen was talking about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform , which is... well, the basis for modern day digital signal transmission. and that's just one of many areas of university-level mathematics where complex numbers are vital.
Was having a pretty good sunday so far. Had a great breakfast. Wife and I took our nephews to see the new lego movie, had a good time. Came home and see a new Martymer video. Day just keeps getting better.
Cluckery Duckery If Marty had actually taught your nephews something useful about the science of Logic, it would have been much better. He could have explained that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence
Concerning IP'S position, there is a form of thought called Paraconsistent logic which attempts to resolve things like the Liar's Paradox or Russell's Paradox by effectively rejecting the Law of the Excluded Middle.
The Liar Paradox is actually something philosophers talk about. If you want a good, detailed breakdown of it, there's one on the Carneades.org TH-cam channel. I can't remember what it's called. Some attempted solutions to the paradox do involve potential truth values other than true and false. I'm not really a fan of IP, but in the name of intellectual honesty I feel I have to point this out.
I can't recall who said it or what specific point was being addressed, but there is a saying, "Wear the glasses of logic if you must, and you will see the logic in the glasses."
IP-s video is so obviously geared towards people, who don't want to think on their own, but want buzzwords and a smart-sounding "position" to defend. Not only is the logic in the video false, as demonstrated by Martymer, but in it IP also tries so hard to sound smart, quoting and misinterpreting the work of people far more intelligent than him. It's hilarious actually.
@@nunyabisnass1141 You are eating this video up because it is full of strawmen and things IP never said: inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/illogical-propaganda-of-martymer81/
@@nunyabisnass1141 The biggest strawman is at the beginning the video because IP is addressing skeptics of logic known as academic or epistemic skeptics. He isn't talking about skeptics such as atheists. This video is pretty embarrassing.
LogosTheos not really embarrassing. He does say that he assumes he means atheists, which is a little irresponsible, but what we're talking about in this thread is how in ip's comment section of this video, are people in his camp also assuming hes talking about atheists, and ip never corrects or clarifys that he isn't referring to atheists, so the assumption is allowed to stand. In other videos he does make such a distinction, but its limited to the context of those specific videos. If its wrong in that it doesn't specifically refer to atheists, then in some small way he's complicit in the error by simple omission. Now i don't expect ip to be held resonsible for many of the idiotic things his subscribers misinterpret or project onto ip's content, but he obviously doesn't see his messages as being educational, or the errors being important enough judging by how little he corrects his own subscribers, and the rampancy in which his own subs get ip's own words wrong, while hes in a discussion with him. I've seen it many many times over the years, even to the point where a very small minority of his subs have bullied and harrassed disenting opinions, where he also did absolutely nothing about. So no ip may not have said atheists specifically, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with others saying it for him, and acting upon that assumption.
And yet, the most depressing part of IP's video is the comment section. It's filled with people who absolutely believe atheists try to disprove logic, because he said so.
All of his videos are like that. Dur her silly atheists deny logic. These people have no idea of what ip is talking about in the first place, and often can't stay on topic long enough to learn anything as you attempt to correct their misunderstandings. Its literally i cant trust anything you say because ip said so, even when he didn't. I wasted many hours trying to correct the bullshit on thst channel, and all ican say is that most of them are flat out delusional. Which is funny because the rational channel had a nice back and forth with ipon his video about delusions. I recomend checking it out th-cam.com/video/tRhH7XEhsSk/w-d-xo.html. But the thing is he usually says he's being taken out of context, despite his arguments being directly quoted in the context he used, and even denied that actual scientists, mathmeticians, and engineers dont agree with his laymenship.
IP also prescribes to the bad logic of asking "can you prove that ATHEISM is true"... so what do you expect from his fans? It's basically WLC if he played amateur football.
This is how biologists must feel like when the creationists talk about evolution. I mean I get how they're wrong with evolution as well but as a mathematician I get really frustrated at how much they butcher logic and math in such a stupid way.
@TDV I know enough to recognize that people who buy into IP's and other Christian Apologist wannabes philosophical bullshit certainly don't have a clue.
@TDV When empirical testing and demonstrable facts are involved skeptical atheists win every time. Christian Apologetics falls apart when it involves anything more substantial than vacuous claims.
Deep Ashtray ••• You bought Marty's pseudo-logic for slaves , hook, line and sinker. He gutted the science of Logic right before your eyes , and you didn't have a clue
"There's no 'r' in 'Gödel'." You are indeed correct, but this isn't something you should nitpick about. While infants are able to detect a _wide_ variety of vowel formants (and can even do this while still in the womb), during childhood, a neurological process called "pruning" takes place, where similar formants that don't have any useful distinction in your native language all start to be interpreted the same by the brain. Ultimately, it's unnecessary clutter in the mind, and our brains process speech faster after we get rid of it. At the neurological level, the pathways that would allow the listener to hear the difference have been abandoned and withered away. By the time we reach adolescence, this process has been completed and it takes _great_ effort to learn new ones. Many listeners literally _cannot_ recognize the difference between "ö" and "ur". They just don't seem to hear it. (Also, many Americans pronounce the words "caught" and "cot" the same, but many do not. Curiously, to the ones who pronounce them the same, they also sound the same when spoken by someone who pronounces them differently.) This is the reason everyone who learns a second language after about the age of 12 will end up with an accent which seems conspicuous to native speakers of that language, and also a reason that American schools should require foreign-language education long before high school. By that time, it's far too late, and becomes more difficult for students. As an aside, I find psycholinguistics to be a very interesting field of study, and I suspect you would be fascinated by it. If you find this presentation by Stephen Pinker interesting, you should consider the field if you have to deal with "Continuing Education" requirements. See: th-cam.com/video/Q-B_ONJIEcE/w-d-xo.html
Preflex ••• The human mind tends to commit known avoidable errors in reasoning . These errors tend to make us vulnerable to various forms fallacious reasoning and deceptive rhetoric ,and are very useful to our leaders . That why the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. And that's why Marty absolutely gutted the science of Logic in this video
@@williamspringer9447 Let me get this straight. You commented. I responded in agreement but questioned your comment's relevance in this thread. You deleted your comment and then posted the same crap again. Why are you responding to _me_?
The big problem with just saying something can be declared not a proposition is that I don't think that there is an "effective procedure" for determining if a statement is a proposition.
A lot of Christian philosophy (a rich heritage) gets stuck in the middle ages, it just never goes beyond Kant, and regurgitates everything before him with modern presentation.
Chris Ray •••• Would you agree that the argument that man walked on the Moon is illogical ? Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of propositional logic for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
When I was in my "philosophy phase" I made the mistake of thinking that "If the laws of any logical system are equivalent, and they work exactly the same regardless of the universe we're in, then that must imply that the laws of logi are the basis for the laws of physics!" (that's a fallacy). _"He confused but he got the spirit!"_ is what I would say to my past self. It's true that logic (along with other tools) is used to _empirically derive_ the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean "logic = meta-physics". It's true that, no matter what sort of alien language we use, logic works the same, *because abstract objects are not the same as their representations.* For instance, the numerical value of unary "11" can be represented as "10" in big-endian binary, or "2" in ternary (or greater). We could even replace arabic-digits by latin-letters ("012" = "ABC"). Boolean values can be represented in many ways: on, off, 1, 0, white, black, up, down, etc... *The representation is different, but the underlying value is the same.* Anyways, thanks for posting this video!
Rob's Backyard Astrophotography ••• Are you kidding me ? Marty might as well be from The Ministry of Truth, with this eviscerate crippled version of the science of Logic that was presented here .
I kind of have an issue with the principle of bivalence. I've done research (as in, I was an employee at a university and got paid for my work) in logics and this principle isn't as useful as it may seem at first. While working within a set of internally consistent premises in first order logic, it does hold. But once you move to different logics you start running into issues really quickly. In higher order logics, you can also reason about sets. But then you run into Russell's Paradox where you can define the set of all sets, which both must contain and not contain itself to exist. First order logic is extremely limited. Even something as simple as the natural numbers cannot be properly defined using only first order logic. If you want to model time-related systems, you're also going to have to expand first order logic with temporal operators. This was the field I was doing research on. While first order logic is already incredibly complex to model systems in, it really only gets worse from there. Both from the point of specifying the system and actually evaluating your proposition. But those are still decidable, even if it takes many times the age of the universe for some problems. You can easily come up with logics in which you can have undecidable propositions where you can prove there is a solution, but you can also prove it is impossible to compute. We're getting into computer science here, I just wanted to point out how there is not one form of logic that does or does not have certain rules. There is a vast landscape it internally consistent and useful logics. This alone makes this generally "philosophical" logic extremely iffy. As long as you're not clearly defining which logic you are using (and actually use the proper notation), you're never going to get very far. The math is King. You're also not building a bridge simply by reasoning blindly about what might work. You reason in a controlled fashion on top of a solid foundation. Without that foundation, the rest is useless. I know you also touched on this in the video, I just wanted to point out how horrible things get as you go down the rabbit hole...
Niosus Excellent exposition! To be fair logicians do engage with the kinds of distinctions you touch on here and the field has expanded massively in philosophy to encompass more than just first order logic. Interestingly, IP appeals to modal logic (actually a subtle misrepresentation of it) in another video. When I pointed out that the soundness of the argument depended on your a priori presupposition in accepting/rejecting a key premise, he blocked me from posting and in the process all my comments disappeared from the thread. IP clearly has no interest in being intellectually honest where his beliefs are concerned, despite protesting he follows where the argument and evidence leads. All very sad.
@@plasticvision6355 I have to grant you that I'm not really up to date with the philosophical side of logic. I only approached things from a computer science point of view where we tried to model systems and prove that they have certain properties. We were also looking at generating behavior from a set of (temporal) logic constraints. Clearly that doesn't involve a lot of philosophy. Although there was one fundamental question that we never were to answer in both a satisfying and useful way: "What is an action?" An action implies that you "do something" to change the world. But actions in real life can fail to attain their goal. They can have unexpected side effects. They may not change the world at all. So how do you express that logically in a useful way you can reason with. The first, most obvious choice is a probabilistic logic. But then you need to figure out what the odds are of all the outcomes, which also implies you need to know these outcomes in the first place. This didn't sit right and also would not work for the systems we were trying to model. So then we tried different ways of modeling actions in temporal logic. But then it becomes really hard to make the action both "useful" and not a guaranteed outcome. If you model the world such that it can make the action fail, nothing stops it from making it fail every time making that action useless. If you do force the world to respond to your action eventually, either you over-constrain the world, or it actually still ends up being able to ignore the action by making the side effects of the action force the system into a loop. I've spent months trying to solve this specific question, without any useful results. The literature also does nor have satisfying solutions. And that's for something as silly as the effect of an action. Anyone who thinks they can reason a God into or out of existence... I think it's just a ridiculous proposition. We're still have trouble formally reasoning about the mundane.
Niosus This is an interesting response. I want to give you some information, or at least a perspective, which might help you in understanding the interface.
Niosus Theistic arguments are simplistic in that their conclusions can be made to fit anything defined as a god. The more they specify the more they have to justify. Conversely, the more nebulous the definition, the more it ceases to be of practical use. As you say, it’s more a case of simplistic naval gazing in a futile attempt to bridge the gap between metaphysics and reality. The problem is endemic to all claims for the existence of the supernatural; the gap simply can’t be bridged. Or put more bluntly, theists have had over 2,000 years to formulate a simple logically valid and sound syllogism and not one of these wishful thinking geniuses has managed to achieve even that simple goal, let alone consider problems of the kind you are grappling with. So sad.
@@plasticvision6355 yeah, I totally agree. It's been shown pretty clearly that deductive reasoning is not an effective way to learn about the reality we live in. Only the brute force scientific method has been effective. I call it brute force because what it comes down to is trying stuff and seeing what sticks. It's not particularly elegant, but it works. Like you said. humans spent thousands of years trying to figure it out using logic alone. Once we discovered the scientific method, we put a man on the moon just a few hundred years later. It doesn't matter what you think, or what you prove using logic. It works. If your theory goes against what we've discovered using the scientific method, shut up, go home, and try again. Reality doesn't care about our feelings. Reality doesn't owe us to make sense. Frankly I'm surprised it behaves as consistently as it does. I can't see why it needs to be like that. That to me is a much bigger mystery than the existence of a God. Even if a God exists, I still want to know why things are the way they are...
Jason Wright ••• Oh, Marty manipulated you plenty with this video. And due to State controlled schools and media, you have no idea the insult that he has offered your intellect .
@15:52 I agree with your argumentation, but (depending on what he meant by "epistemologically") I'd say that there is a psychological difference between 100% abstract, relatively-recently invented concepts like "i", versus simpler math concepts derived, in ancient times, from everyday objects: counting numbers, areas, fractions etc. These simpler concepts are easily relatable: two apples fill you more than one apple, half an apple fills you less than one apple, you can experience 3 dimensions (a thread, a paper, a cube). The more recent, abstract concepts like 4-or-more dimensions, or "i", aren't as accessible mentally, it takes training to productively manipulate them, like tools. Though I'm not sure if this is the point he tried to make. Maybe he meant that ALL math concepts (simple or abstract) lack some external "justification", besides their human definitions, because we cannot experience them directly...
Schrodinger's proposition, or super propositions; do these only exist as thought experiments? I don't know what they're actually called but it appears they have some use in physics that as a lay person I never really understood. Unless it is exactly the point of i.
It's superposition, nothing to do with pRopositions (note the r). It's a rather tricky part of quantum physics, that I don't think I can explain in a TH-cam comment, but maybe Google can help you, now you know the correct spelling.
@@KaiHenningsen I wasn't using position. I deliberately wrote proposition. Notice how I used Schrodinger first. The idea that something can be "dead" or false and "alive" or true at the same time. I was trying to bridge a comparison to this kind of thought experiment.
KamiRecca ••• If that's a good con , I'm sure Marty will use it to sucker these rubes. He just absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video, and none of them had a clue.
14:00 could you go into Russell's Theory of Types in some future video? i would particularly be interested to hear what new problems it introduces. EDIT: oh, i think i may be mixing something up... that solved the Barber Paradox, not the Liars Paradox (or could it do both?)
From what little I remember of type theory (in a course taught by Alonzo Church!), it also addresses the Liar's Paradox. When you start talking about propositions in simple predicate calculus, you are talking about something with a higher-level 'type'.
Silkwesir ••• Marty just absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video .He didn't even bother to explain how to determine if a deductive argument is sound or and inductive argument cogent. But then, if he did that he might actually be teaching his audience a tiny bit about reasoning properly. And hes not going to do that. The science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. Why do you suppose that is? I guarantee that Marty knows exactly why that is . The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
13:10 another simple solution is: if the truth status of the sentence has no influence on my decisional process, the sentence is labeled false. "This sentence is false"? False, because i have no practical way to use the truth status of that sentence. "Brain in a vat"? False, for the same reasoning. There was a cool video by anticitizenx explaining this topic throughly.
At some point, like most people, I asked the question, “who created god” and “where’d god come from.” This was - of course - in response to adults using god to explain all of existence. Personally, any discussions beyond this simple question are nonsensical, since most arguments used to explain why god must exist can be turned around to explain the existence of the “creator of god” & why this “thing” must exist. I have never heard a believer address this paradox or even attempt to do so. Blank stares or verbal nonsense is what I got back. F-ing dishonest asses, IMHO. Again; everything beyond this simple question seem illogical to me. Why proceed until this critical, first principle by definition, issue (we are discussing where shit came from, by the way) is addressed! Indeed! JJV
Jim Vrbanac •• At some point, you should ask why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of Logic for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto •• Hey , maybe you can ask Marty about that , and he can lie to you about the science of Logic some more.
One way to know that IP needs to learn more about logic is that, in his chains of reasoning, he labels everything except his final conclusion a premise, even when they are in fact conclusions based on previous lines.
Michael Sommers ••• And what can we infer from the fact that Marty forgot to mention that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence in this video? How about the fact that he didn't even mention inductive reasoning?
Thanks for the lesson. I have never really understood logic and the whole proposition stuff.It would be nice to think IP would learn something but I doubt that if it helps to recruit people to his cause!
wheels5894 ••• Marty just gutted the science of Logic with this video . He didn't even explain that a deductive argument must also be sound to be logical .. He never even explained how to determine if an inductive argument is cogent . He left you just as intellectually crippled as you were before .
Defining a proposition as that which must have a truth value is all well and good but it doesn't really solve the problem. Even if the Liar's Paradox is not a proposition with a truth value, there are propositions *about* it. The statement "the Liar's paradox is true" is a proposition as much as "the Liar's paradox is false" and if we accept either proposition as true or false, we run into the same problem.
Yeas but beyond the basics not much else is required in the area of logic, so Martymer81 likely taught himself some other things or picked it up in other courses/from other professors if I had to guess.
I found a website that talks about the liar's paradox, and it has this sentence, claiming it to be a paradox: "This sentence is either false or meaningless." www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/#SH1a
I'd be happy to tag-team with him next time IP says something stupid, but collabs are tricky in that it involves two people's schedules, and neither one of us have a lot of time to devote to making videos. But never say never.
IP is arguing against absolute skepticism/or academic skepticism: www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html Not skeptics as in atheists or naturalists. So there is a huge misrepresentation at the very beginning of the video that sets a discouraging tone for the rest.
Then he's not talking about anyone and any ideas that form this community. He's arguing against people who don't exist or at least aren't represented here in the slightest. So where's the argument? Who do he and his followers believe he is making it against?
@@senorpoopEhead They do exist. Here is a video showing arguments for epistemic skepticism which is the philosophical position IP is arguing against in his video: th-cam.com/video/pBlDGTZUOek/w-d-xo.html
So you're saying, @@LogosTheos, that IP is making an argument against such a rare type of skeptic that we have to go out of our way to find such a person? Why in the world would he do that?
"IP is arguing against absolute skepticism/or academic skepticism" If he is, he never declared that. I'm completely justified thinking he's just trying to paint Naturalism as illogical, because this seems the goal of his video to me. If it isn't, it's IP fault to not properly convey his thoughts... maybe he needs to study some logic to do that, since it's the field that deals with it. "So there is a huge misrepresentation at the very beginning of the video that sets a discouraging tone for the rest. " Like, defining "Logic" wrong?? In a way that includes characteristics logic doesn't have because they are fundamental for his (flawed anyway, what a fail) arguement?
4:40 "Honestly I've never come across this argument from a skeptic" Alex Malpass sometimes says that he doubts the law of non-contradiction, because maybe the liars paradox is a contradiction, he doesn't know. (Not quite as strong as concluding they are false, like IP formulated it.) He says he's open to there being real contradictions out there, if he encountered one in the distant universe he wouldn't reject it just based on dogmatic adherence to the law.
The problem is that THINGS aren’t contradictory (at least in the logical sense), but rather statements/labels are. So I’m not quite sure what Alex could even have in mind when he made that claim. Independent of any labels/categorization, things simply are whatever they are. And it seems completely meaningless to say that they could be ‘contradictory’.
@@fanghur Interesting point! I know Alex is aware of it, he has an article ranting about how the laws of logic are about propositions not objects, and apologists are getting it wrong when they take "A = A and A =/= not-A" for the law of non-contradiction, and plug in objects like an apple. I'll have to think more about what he meant by finding a contradiction out there in the universe somewhere. Good one! Thanks Fanghur :)
munstrumridcully ••• Yeah , Marty "FORGOT" that didn't he? He also forgot to explain that a valid deductive argument must also be sound before it can be considered logical. He also forgot to explain that the vast majority of our decision making is inductive rather than deductive . He also forgot to explain that the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
@@williamspringer9447 Good points! 😊 I guess he doesn't have the time to give a full lecture on propositional logic. It's so true that almost all the decisions we make result from (often unconscious/subconscious) inductive reasoning. Our experiences, imo, shape our decisions even more so than our genetic heritage. Imo, we draw upon our experiences inductively to shape our actions.
munstrumridcully ••• Marty absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video . He taught his audience precisely nothing about logic that they didn't already know and practice naturally. Show me a reasonably intelligent person who will believe an invalid deductive argument? I've never met one. Nine out of ten Americans still believe, however, that man walked on the Moon; even though that argument is far from being inductively cogent
@@williamspringer9447 It's been a while since I've seen the video, but from what I recall, IP was attempting to use logic to disprove logic. Which is kinda like using brain surgery to disprove the existence of brains. I haven't been in the argument-o-sphere for a while, as recent events have degraded to such an extent that any sort of public forum is now the internet equivalent of an orgy but one dude has mono. With all that said, Marty has kinda blurred together with Darkmatter, TJ, and the general population of r/atheism to me. The only marker of distinction is that he's actually educated.
AnimusTelum ••• At 9:05 this deceptive nonsense came out of Marty's mouth: "Logic doesn't deal with how we know a that a statement about external reality is true or false. That's epistemology , not logic. Logic doesn't deal with the content of an argument , it only deals with the form of argument . Is the argument internally consistent ? Is it valid? " •••• This is how you dumb down the masses. This is how you make slaves. Strip the science of Logic of its power to expose real-world deception. Marty wishes to limit logic to deductive arguments only, and then only to deductive validity , completely suppressing the most important law of logic : LOGICAL ARGUMENTS MUST BE PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE, OR THEY ARE NOT LOGICAl. Marty won't even tell you that a deductive argument can be valid , without being sound (logical). He doesn't mention inductive reasoning at all, or what requirements an argument must satisfy to be inductively cogent. (Most of our real-world reasoning is inductive rather than deductive.) Why is that? Here's some information about the science of Logic that you may find useful. ••• The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is very hard to deceive people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of Logic or the art of rhetoric. ••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, "Rhetoric" •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition •••••••••• "The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded." -John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) •••••••••• "Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) •••••••••• "The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains." -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
Doubt is the main weapon of the apologist. They just keep distorting reality in the hope that it will confuse the listener into accepting the religion Must be the default position. Keep up the good work.
Was it a slip of the tongue when you said logic "actually is a branch of mathematics?" My understanding is that it's the other way around and mathematics is a branch of logic. A system of logic is basically a set of abstract rules that always produces a specific output when you feed in a specific input. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure mathematics is the subcategory of logical systems that deal with numbers. Good video, that was just a nitpick that may come down to semantics.
In terms of disciplines logic is generally considered a subset of mathematics. Set theory may be a fundamental basis for much of the rest of mathematics but set theory is still a subset of mathematics. Also attempts to ground all of mathematics within a logic have consistently failed, and I think Bertrand Russell essentially proved it was impossible to reframe all mathematics in logical statements.
@@ronanstephens1597 I'm sorry to say that I haven't read the complete works of Bertrand Russell. Could you point me to where I can find where he essentially proved this? I could see how it would be impossible to ground all of mathematics within a logic because different mathematical systems use different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) axioms. That being said, each individual mathematical system has to follow all the rules for systems of logical, but not all systems of logic are mathematical - at least in the sense that they deal with quantities. I realize that set theory is commonly thought of as a subset of mathematics, but is that actually accurate? Set theory is a major part of every mathematical system, but as I think you meant to say, it's also a fundamental basis for much of the rest of logic. If you think of the various set theories as systems of logic that can be employed in other systems of logic, like how arithmetic is employed in algebra, everything makes sense. I can see why people consider set theory to be a subset of mathematics, it's what defines pretty much everything that mathematical systems are based on, but that still makes the study of set theory applied to mathematics a subset of the study of set theory in logic. Sorry if I'm coming off as combative, that's not my intent. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, I'm just pretty sure I'm right on this so I'd like to know exactly where I'm wrong on something if it turns out that I'm wrong.
@@mattlambert3118 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica It was the Principia Mathematica I was remembering. Although I may have explained the point incorrectly. Quoting from the Wikipedia page: PM was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logicfrom which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy,[1] being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable. However, in 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theoremproved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them. As for a matter of who's right and wrong, it's really only convention as to whether you say logic is a subset of mathematics or visa versa. I was just starting that generally the discipline of logic is subsumed by the discipline of mathematics, as in say university departments.
History Center ••• Mathematical logic is useless for understanding real world deception . That's why they teach it . The science of propositional logic however, is extremely useful in that regard . That's why the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. And it's also why Marty butchered it in this video .The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
What is logic? Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smells bad. I thought everyone knew that.
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
it is extremely easy to debunk IP's idea of inserting extra truth values in order to solve the liar's paradox let T(2) = {t1, t2} be the initial set of truth values where t1 = false and t2 = true then, let L(2) be the following proposition, L(2) = "this proposition is not t1, and not t2" therefore we introduce a third value t3 and build T(3) = {t1, t2, t3} and says that the logic value of L(2) is t3 but then we can state proposition L(3) = "this proposition is not t1, not t2 and not t3" so that he must add a new truth value t4 and build T(4) = {t1, t2, t3, t4} and say that the logic value of L(2) is t4 but then we can state proposition L(4) = "this proposition is not t1, not t2, not t3 and not t4" ... therefore, given T(n), we can always build proposition L(n) which can not have a truth value which is contained within T(n), forcing us to define to T(n+1), but then we can state L(n+1) as "this proposition is not t0, not t1, ..., not tn and not tn+1" ... which forces us to keep going on indefinitely, and, even if you consider a set T of infinite truth values, I can still state L = "for every element t of T, t is not the truth value of L"
The law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Self referential statements are not declaratory propositions because there is no truth value to the proposition without the proposition itself. Declaratory propositions are statements that make a claim about the universe that can be determined, but self referential statements don't make any claim. His statement about 100% truth is stupider than you gave him credit for. If 100% is certainty, then by definition any other percentage is doubt. 90% certain is 10% doubt, 80% certain is 20% doubt, that's literally what the percentage certainty means. Of course you doubt anything that you don't believe 100% because that's what it means to believe something less than 100%.
wwickeddogg ••• The premises of logical arguments should be sufficiently supported by reliable evidence to prove that they are true to the point of practical certainty . Why didn't Marty mention that logical argument must be properly supported by reliable evidence?
@@williamspringer9447 An argument can be valid and an argument can be sound. A valid argument can lead to a false conclusion if premise is false. There is no requirement that logical arguments must be supported by reliable evidence. Whether or not you believe a premise of an argument depends on the evidence you have. If you are already aware of the evidence then you don't need any more. Determining if you should believe a conclusion involves evaluating the evidence for yourself and some arguments don't require any evidence at all.
wwickeddogg •••• A self-evident premise contains sufficient evidence within itself to prove that it is true; 2+2=4 for example. All other premises supporting a logical argument must be sufficiently supported by reliable evidence to prove that they are true . If you haven't enough reliable evidence to prove that the premise is true , then the premise is questionable at best , and therefore the arguments if fallacious . •••• Try to get that out of Marty and see what happens. Keeping the masses stupid is the name of the game with these big logic channels on youtube.
wwickeddogg ••••• My God , it's like I'm dealing with a bunch of zombies here . You've been brainwashed , my man! The science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. That's a fact! Why do you suppose they deliberately don't teach hundreds of millions of people to effectively use the science of classical logic to understand real-world deceptive arguments? Maybe , they forgot ? Wake up! Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened. We've been made into mindless cattle. For thousands of years the science of logic has held that logical arguments must only be inferred from true premises, therefore we must insure that we are confident that they are true. That means that premise must be properly supported by reliable evidence/self-evident . THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO KNOW THAT A PREMISE IS TRUE ! Now read this and try not to hurt yourself :•••• The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is very hard to deceive people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of Logic or the art of rhetoric. ••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, "Rhetoric" •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition •••••••••• "The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded." -John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) •••••••••• "Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) •••••••••• "The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains." -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99
While I understand the confusion of IT'S point and I understand that it wasn't articulated well, at least not in the clip you provided, I think IP meant that anything which is illogical is impossible. This would entail that all things which are logical are *possible* from a metaphysical sense, which I would agree with. There are some arguments made about whether logical possibility and metaphysical possibility are identical, but the strongest case against it has to do with semantic arguments that change definitions. For example, it is logically possible that water could be defined as something other than H2O, but it is metaphysically possible for water to be anything else other than H2O, since it has been defined as such. I think this is a really weak argument because if we allow for different semantics, we dont run into the problem. All that being said, I think IP could have explained that better.
6:16 Not to be a wiseass or anything, but what if "Socrates lives in Greece, therefore he's in Greece" and "Socrates is on a pilgrimage away from home, therefore he's not in Greece." Both these statements might be true at the moment, and a guy named Socrates lives in Greece, but at the same time, because he's traveling, he's not in Greece. How do we rectify this situation?
By understanding that there's a definition shift between the two "x is in Greece" statements. In the first one, it translates to "x has a residence / owns property in Greece". In the latter one, it translates to "x currently does not occupy a physical space in Greece". Basically, living in a place doesn't imply you're physically there that moment. If the first statement is true, then the "Socrates is in Greece" part isn't actually the same statement. It's just phrased that way. (Same sort of way two words may have the same spelling but different meanings, just applied to statements) (There's a few other ways to hash it out, but that's the gist)
Ace Sorou ••• Logical arguments must only be inferred from premises which are true and well supported by reliable evidence. Doesn't that solve your problem ? Marty forgot to mention that little fact.
You rectify that situation with more informations and analazying definitions. For example, bot can be true at the same time IF i accept 2 people named Socrates, with the name being the focus one Socrates can be in greece and the other not. They can be both true for the same Socrates too, if i'm defining "lives" and "he's in" as "he has a greek citizenship", so that his actual physical location is indifferent. The important part, as I hope to have shown you, is what is meant when something is sayd. If it isn't clear, it has to be cleared before assigning any truth value (unless you're a pragmatist, in wich case unclear proposition for lack of clarity are labeled "false" until more clarity is done).
The only thing Goedel proved was that mathematics is a crutch, however useful, still a crutch - shitting all over Hilbert's / Russel's attempts to formalize it. Too bad the err in their reasoning multiplied beyond the boundaries of their system.
This is actually off topic - however this is an itch I have to scratch. That is, it bugs me. At about 16:10 you have "Definition: i is defined as the number that satisfies the equation i^2=-1." Actually this is a poor definition --- mainly because there are two "numbers" when squared will yield -1. That is, if we can extend the real numbers to a field were we have solutions to the polynomial equation, z^2+1=0, we find we have two roots. Say a and b. In this extension of the reals, z^2-1= (z-a)(z-b). Call one of these roots i. The other will be additive inverse of i, the number -i. The definition you gave implies uniqueness. Another, and I think more elegant approach is to associate the reals with 2x2 matrices,r -> the matrix with r on the main diagonal and zeros elsewhere. Now i can be defined by 1 down the main diagonal and -1 in the 2, 1 position and 1 in the 1,2 position. Google imaginary numbers as a 2x2 matrix. A third approach requires a little linear algebra. Consider a two dimensional vector space over the reals with a basis {(1,0),(0,1)}. Install a "multiplication" by (a,b)*(c,d) = (ac-bd,cb+ad). Show that this makes sense and forms a field. Then i =(0,1). With this approach, one can jump off to the quaternions, where there are four unique solutions to the equation, z^2+1=0. My rant is over - please go on with your day..
I actually made a mistake. In mentioning quaternions, I said there are four solutions to z^2+1=0. Technically this is correct, because there are at least 6, so there are 4. Are there more than 6? And what are the solutions?
Terry Endicott ••• Symbolic logic is useless for discussion of debate . That's why they teach it . The science of propositional logic however, hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. And Marty absolutely gutted the science of propositional logic in this video. Do you know how? The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
lies damnlies •••• But surely they taught you the science of propositional logic in school.? I mean , schools deliberately not teaching kids to properly reason doesn't happen in a free society, right?
Like...the whole believing something to be true until proven false is more or less the flip-side to the skeptic coin, right? I ALMOST said that it's like believing a person to be good until they prove they're bad, but no, it's actually not like that: the skeptic approach is most reasonable where logic is concerned.
I agree with everything you said except one thing; the umlaut over the "o" in Godel actually does make it sound like there's an "r" in it. Here's the international phonetic alphabet spelling: ɡɜːrdəl
I doubt even a single person ever converts to monotheism based on his 7-proposition-long discourse on logic. People believe for emotional reasons, to feel reassured and accepted, not because you've constructed the mother of all syllogisms
There is further problem with IP's representation of GT. What "all truth" means? There are consistent theories that allows proving all possible theorems within those theories. It's when we want richer theories we get into the problem of getting improvable theorems.
IP's problem is he thinks logic by itself can prove something is factual in nature. Logic is only a starting point for figuring out how the universe works.
John Porteous ••• And the laws and principles that government logical inference don't care if you know how to effectively use them to understand deceptive rhetoric of fallacious reasoning . And Marty surely doesn't .
Ironically IP was trying to roughly formulate a system of logic where we can always tell the truth value of all statements, and all statements have truth values. And, again ironically, if I get Gödel correctly his idea runs totally against this - we cannot build a flawless logical system where all statements are true or false and we can prove them. If I am wrong in any way regarding this, I do take corrections with pleasure.
This sounds very much correct actually 👌😁 Gödel says we cannot have a system that only has either true or false premises, but that there is and will always be premises that lack truth values, premises that are neither true or false. IP doesn't understand this. So by quoting Gödel he quite literally shot himself in the foot. 👌😁
I can’t get how people lack basic reasoning skills. I had a class in logic that the professor made so easy to understand there was no excuse not to pass his class with an A.
This is quite possibly the best video explaining logic I've ever seen - well done! By the way, in English "bivalence" is pronounced like "buy-vay-lence", though I understand this can be confusing to someone who has never heard it pronounced but is aware of the word "ambivalence". English is a weird language. Also: "This statement is bitch, please!" is in fact a nuh-uh statement. (There's something I never thought I'd write.)
Yiab •••• My God, you have no idea. This video might as well have come directly from the Ministry of Truth. Marty has eviscerated the science of Logic here.
Yiab ••• At 9:05 this deceptive nonsense came out of Marty's mouth: "Logic doesn't deal with how we know a that a statement about external reality is true or false. That's epistemology , not logic. Logic doesn't deal with the content of an argument , it only deals with the form of argument . Is the argument internally consistent ? Is it valid? " •••• This is how you dumb down the masses. This is how you make slaves. Strip the science of Logic of its power to expose real-world deception. Marty wishes to limit logic to deductive arguments only, and then only to deductive validity , completely suppressing the most important law of logic : LOGICAL ARGUMENTS MUST BE PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE, OR THEY ARE NOT LOGICAl. Marty won't even tell you that a deductive argument can be valid , without being sound (logical). He doesn't mention inductive reasoning at all, or what requirements an argument must satisfy to be inductively cogent. (Most of our real-world reasoning is inductive rather than deductive.) Why is that? Here's some information about the science of Logic that you may find useful. ••• The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is very hard to deceive people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of Logic or the art of rhetoric. ••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, "Rhetoric" •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition •••••••••• "The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded." -John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) •••••••••• "Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) •••••••••• "The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains." -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
@@williamspringer9447 You are conflating a variety of different disciplines and modes of reasoning here, and this equivocation seems to stem from your unstated assumption that logic has not progressed in any significant capacity since Aristotle. Let me take your ideas in order. 1) Marty is not claiming, as far as I can tell, that logic is the be-all end-all of being reasonable or of understanding the world we live in. He is using the word logic in its mathematical sense (as one should expect of a physicist), and clearly specifically referring to classical logic. In a mathematical setting, evidence is irrelevant and what matters is what can be proven. As such, your purported "most important law of logic" can be summarily dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to think that "logical" is synonymous with "sound", which is generally not the case in my experience. 2) He doesn't mention inductive reasoning because it is a separate discipline from classical logic. You are quite correct that most of our real-world reasoning is inductive rather than deductive, but correct methods of drawing conclusions through inductive reasoning are quite different from (and not entirely inclusive of) correct methods of drawing conclusions through deductive reasoning. As an example, statistical correlation is not transitive, so any attempts to reason deductively about the relationships between properties that have been established inductively risks misapplying deductive principles. Logic is certainly a part of reasoning, but it is not the whole of reasoning. 3) Logic has progressed immeasurably since Aristotle - for just one example Aristotle had no clue about how to be rigorous and formal in one's reasoning (something which took until Frege for someone to complete in a useful format, in my opinion). Additionally, the way that the term "logic" has come to be used has changed significantly over the last hundred and fifty years or so, especially when it comes to its technical usages. As such, most of your quotes are woefully out of date. I agree that logic should be taught in all high schools (as well as rhetoric), and that it should be a required class. I will definitely dispute the characterization of logic as a science, however, since (in the way it is being used here) it is totally disconnected from inductive reasoning (which is a major part of the scientific method). Now, to address your wall of quotes. Schopenhauer (1831): A priori reasoning is, by definition, reasoning that does not require real-world evidence. The process of correct a priori reasoning, then, cannot be based on evidence. This quote directly contradicts your initial paragraph. Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary (please include year and version): The provided definition of logic is colloquial, not technical. Likewise the provided definition of infer[ence] does not match the use of the word in formal logic. Bittle (1935): Bittle was a Franciscan monk and philosopher, with no evident mathematical training. He was clearly using logic in its colloquial sense, as he was writing for a lay audience. Aristotle: As far as I can tell (not being an expert on Aristotle or on ancient Greek philosophy), this is not relevant to how we are using the term "logic" in this discussion. Hurley (1985): Does not address the use of the word "logic". Kahane (1976): Notice that the three points mentioned here are about reasoning **cogently** not about reasoning **logically**. Reasoning **logically** only addresses the first of these points. Mill (1843): This is an archaic usage of the term, closer to the colloquial in the modern day. Collins (1713): This does not address the usage of the word "logic". Schopenhauer (1831): This only addresses the way in which Aristotle used the term "logic", not its modern usages. Hurley (1985): Again, this does not address the usage of the word logic, unless you assume that fallacies are identical with contra-logical reasoning. In any case, "As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises." quite clearly demonstrates that this quote does not discuss logic in its deductive capacity. Stebbing (1934): Does not address the usage of the word logic. In fact, since logic quite clearly deals with proofs and the quote contrasts proofs with establishing something to a practical certainty, it is suggestive of using the word in the same way Marty and I have been. Now, I'll add a few quotes of my own to explain how the word is being used in a modern, often technical context. "Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity",[1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge." Wikipedia - Logic and Rationality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality) "Typically, a logic consists of a formal or informal language together with a deductive system and/or a model-theoretic semantics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Classical Logic (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/) "After G. Frege (1879) and C. Peirce (1885) put the logic of predicates, variables and quantifiers into the language of algebra, it became possible to apply this language to questions in the foundations of mathematics." Encyclopedia of Mathematics - Mathematical Logic (encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic) "The formal mathematical study of the methods, structure, and validity of mathematical deduction and proof." Wolfram MathWorld - Logic (mathworld.wolfram.com/Logic.html)
Yiab ••• That response was masterful. I very much appreciate the art and intellect involved . Obviously I understand that it is a complete appeal to ignorance ; both eristic and sophistic. I'm lacking time and energy right now , and don't feel i can do this response justice without a good deal more thought , but I do invite anybody reading this thread to consider who's explanation of the science of Logic has more usefulness in the real world.•••• Dr .Madsen Pirie defines a logical fallacy as: "Any trick of logic or language which allows a statement or a claim to be passed off as something that it is not ..." •••• "Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory. " -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••• "ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the use of an argument that sounds convincing to others because they are ignorant of the weaknesses of the argument and of the facts that stand against it." -Sister Miriam Joseph PhD , "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric" (1937) ••• 'In the appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) one relies on the lack of knowledge on the part of the hearers to hinder them from seeing through the speciousness of one's arguments. Statistics are thus often used and abused by orators, knowing that the audience is not acquainted with the facts or with the proper interpretation of the figures. Speaking to an uneducated mass meeting, the speaker will frequently sway his audience with the fire of his enthusiasm and the grandiloquence of his language, convinced that the play of his words will do more than any amount of cogent reasoning.' -Celestine N. Bittle, The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic ••• "What we are seeing is that the so-called truths of symbolic logic-the “laws of logic”-aren’t true at all. They’re statement-forms, not statements, and therefore aren’t true or false. And it isn’t easy to find interpretations of those statement-forms that validate them. In other words, it isn’t easy to figure out what sorts of constants must replace the variables occurring in these “laws” if true sentences are to result. This suggests that modern symbolic logic (a.k.a. mathematical logic, a.k.a. formal logic) isn’t logic at all. It’s actually a small and rather unimportant branch of a discipline known as “model theory.” In Section 3.4, we’ll see why, given this fact, it follows that formal logic has little to do with the way in which any actual or even possible being reasons." - "Elementary Logic: Third Edition" by J.-M. Kuczynski, Kindle Loc 686 •••• Professor Peter Kreeft noted in his book "Socratic Logic" that he had never heard anyone but a professional philosopher use symbolic/ mathematical logic Logic in a discussion or debate. ••• "How Long Has This Stuff Been Around? If this is the first time you have heard about fallacies, you may think that a structured defense against deception is a new idea. However, the Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote about some of the most common fallacies over 2300 years ago in his Sophistical Refutations. One would think that in all the time since then, these ideas would have totally spread through the culture of the educated world. One would expect that manipulation by advertisers, politicians, news pundits, and other unsavory characters would be impossible. One would assume that this type of critical think thinking would be a regular part of scholastic instruction: public, private, or home. But no. The vast majority of people remain unaware and unarmed. Hopefully, Don't Get Fooled will improve the general level of reasoning by spreading these ideas in an easy-to-understand format. When we laugh out loud at irrational commercials, unsound campaign rhetoric, and slimy sales pitches, and these communications have to be rewritten with data and logic because they are no longer effective, we will know we have succeeded." -'Don't Get Fooled! How to Analyze Claims for Fallacies, Biases, and Other Deceptions' Ray Givler, Kindle location 540 ••• "I agree, again, with Lord Baldwin that most electors are 'only imperfectly prepared to follow a close argument'. That being so, the politician who seeks to win an election must resort to persuasion. He 'must' because, first, he seeks to get something done -- to put a policy into effect; secondly, in order to achieve this policy, his party must be returned to power; thirdly, the victory of the party at the polls depends upon the votes of electors who are beset by hopes and fears and who have never been trained to think clearly. Consequently, rhetorical persuasion will in fact be substituted for rational argument and for reasonable consideration of the difficulties that confront any Democratic government." -'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) page14 "An argument is a special kind of expression of inference , one that attempts to prove something on the basis of evidence." -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (1985), 2nd edition ••• "The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the the evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the evidence." -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (1985), 2nd edition •••• "Fallacious Even If Valid So far, we have considered arguments that are fallacious precisely because they are invalid. But arguments may be fallacious for reasons other invalidity --even valid arguments may be fallacious. Thus we have the fallacy category 'fallacious even if valid. 1. Suppressed Evidence When arguing, it is human nature to present every reason you can think of that is favorable to your own position, while omitting those that are unfavorable. Nevertheless, anyone who argues in this very human way argues fallaciously. Let's call this the fallacy of 'suppressed evidence... Questionable Premise The fallacy of the 'questionable premise' is simply the fallacy of accepting premises in an argument that are both questionable and inadequately supported." -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••• "A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has true premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the argument is unsound. The qualification that the premises must be true means that all premises must be true. Because a valid argument is one such that if the premises are true it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true, and because a sound argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that every sound argument, by definition, will have a true conclusions as well. A sound argument, therefore, is what is meant by a "good" deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term." -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (1985), 2nd edition ••• "A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has true premises, and if either condition is missing the argument is uncogent. A cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a " good" inductive argument without qualification. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of a cogent argument is probably true." -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic (1985), 2nd edition
"To attack the laws of logic you have to assume your attack on logic is logically formulated" Yeah, and the first victim of my attack on logic would be my logically formulated attack on logic.
Piesho Nais••• Well, I guess it's a good thing that Marty didn't come within a hundred miles of honestly exposing how fondue the science of Logic to understand real world deception. This video might as well have been presented by The Ministry of Truth.
Bitch please is my favourite go to logical conclusion. Comes from 13 years of youtube. "The earth is flat? Bitch please!" "God exists? Bitch please." "Jordan knows what he's talking about when it comes to spirit science? Bitch PLEASE!"
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
I debated IP on the God of the Gaps Fallacy. On one of his videos (check it out). On the second round of the debate I asked him to address my rebuttals but he didn't. Since he seems to address rebuttals but not mine I assumed he couldn't.
Well obviously he doesn't have to reply. And they can't be irrelevant because he asked me those questions because they are relevant to him! I noticed that when he's addressing other You Tubers he answers their questions and rebuttals as well as my previous rebuttals (sorry I didn't mention that in my last text). And I asked him why he didn't respond to my rebuttals and he never did! So I feel justified in thinking that he couldn't! Did you even check out the debate?
IP is playing the presuppositionalist game of insisting that there must be a god to provide a grounding for logic. Sye ten Bruggencate does the same thing when he keeps asking how people know what they know, insisting that any doubt makes everything we claim to know blow up, while he is saved (in more ways than one) by asserting his god.
@TDV He's wrong when he says that there has to be a god to act as a grounding for logic. Did he correctly identify the day of the week on which he was filming?
In premise 3, it sounds like he’s remarking on the crisis that threatened to derail mathematics early last century. That’s where we got Godel’s Theorem and Turing’s Halting Problem. It’s also why we have multiple inconsistent versions of mathematical theories. Each theory is internally consistent and valid. But different theories pick and choose between certain axioms that don’t lead to contradictions whether you assume them to be true or false. So things like the axiom of choice may be true in one system and false in another. Yet both systems are mathematically consistent. And Godel tells us they’re also incomplete because there are true statements in mathematical systems that can’t be proven true within those systems. This kind of thing blew mathematical minds back in the day. And it came about by translating a statement like “this statement is false” into a system of arithmetic. Of course that was around a century age and mathematicians have dealt with it and moved on. We know all about limits on mathematics, logic, and computation. What skeptics are using it _now_ to disprove logic?
Jamal Wills ••• The science of propositional logic presents obvious dangers if it is widely understood by the masses . That is why people like Marty plainly eviscerate the science of Logic before they present it to their. audience . For instance, Aristotle asserted that logical arguments must be well supported by reliable evidence, yet there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. eeceived deceived into war there . Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, yet there is no reliable evidence that it ever happened.
I really think he didn't spoke about atheist when he said skeptics in this video, but classical skeptics. Carneades.org used the liar paradox as an argument against logic here: th-cam.com/video/tcr2UuJiuu8/w-d-xo.html
Marty, you only got it half right. Logic is the study of reason. But when discussing "Possible Worlds" in modal logic, the only possible worlds are worlds that are non-contradictory (i.e. it's not possible for God to both exist and not exist). So it *is* about what is really possible. Why would logical consistency matter, unless it had real-world consequences? The Laws of Logic also govern Possible Worlds (what is possible).
0:36 "Explicitly rejecting logic..." >Shows quote about reason Are reason and logic interchangeable terms? I don't think so personally. I don't agree with Martin Luther about reason, or a lot of things, but this quote seems disingenuous.
I never thought that I'd say this, but we need to go back to the 1800s in part of our education system. Back then, students were trained about logic, critical thinking, fallacies, etc. from a very young age. (Read about the symbolic logic techniques of the learned mathematician *Charles Lutwidge Dodgson* (+), sometime...) Today, the absence of this teaching is painfully telling. The ignorance of critical thinking techniques have lead to a staggering amount of utter stupidity by figures in politics & the media. This would seem to be a deliberate policy by religious organisations to prevent their followers from analyzing the logical flaws in their faith & therefore being be less likely to blindly follow whatever stupidity that the leaders of these groups promote. (+) Better known by his pen name *Lewis Carroll* ... [ Jabberwocky ] ; )~
ninthRing •••• The science of propositional logic informs us that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence. There is no reliable evidence that man ever walked on the Moon. Do you see why the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century? The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
@@williamspringer9447 You & I have profoundly differing standards of *_"reliable evidence"_* , if you doubt something with as massive amounts of evidential data as the *Apollo* manned moon missions... Understand, even if you were to doubt the copious quantities of information from *NASA* & the *US* government⊕, there's sufficient documentation from other sources to accept the veracity of the moon landings. I'm an *Australian* & our *CSIRO Parkes Observatory* was an essential part of the tracking & communication system of the *Apollo 11* missions: You've undoubtedly watched the *Neil Armstrong* moon landing transmission from *_July 1969_* , which was received from *Apollo 11 / Tranquility Base* at *Parkes* & sent across the globe. ⊕ Questioning your government's honesty in political circumstances is entirely understandable & valid, however you must draw a line and accept some government provided information, or you'll end up going down the rabbit hole of unjustifiable paranoia & confusion. Where you draw the line is something you need to think about...
IP's definition of logic reminds me of the way apologists often treat definitions - As if they are reality-altering magic spells. Or to put it more charitably, as if they are prescriptive and not descriptive. They also do this with many other things, such as the laws of physics.
When Kirk Cameron says at 0:54 "circumnavigate the intellect" all I can think is he must be the Marco Polo of intellect. The word I hope he was intending to use is "circumvent". He should learn English before he tries to overturn hundreds of years of human achievement in science.
The wording apart, he still is saying what amounts to "shut off your critical thinking and the logical explanation goes away and MY explanation makes sense again".
Which even if he had more to base his claims on would still be a horrible way to justify accepting them as he does not appeal to evidence but to ignoring the justified skepticism about these claims...
to be fair, he doesn't need to learn english in particular to overturn science. being able to use any different language properly would do the trick, too.
to be honest, as long as he doesn't release a scientific paper with an error like that and insist on keeping it in when it's pointed out in peer review, and as long as the listener properly understands what he's talking about, it's not really a world-changing problem.
to be pedantic and use your own argument against you, you're thinking of maggellan, not marco polo... learn history :D
i'm sorry for having to point this out, i actually agree his slip of the tongue was quite funny.
'Circumvent' has a negative connotation. 'Circumnavigate' sounds similar and does not set off the 'bullshit' alarms as easily. Remember, this shit is carefully scripted.
@@xaenon Of course it sets of bullshit alarms... for everybody who knows what words MEAN. circumnavigate is not the proper vocabulary for what he wanted to say. And if circumvent has a negative connotion? Fantastic, his whole statement was abjectly repulsive.
@@Ugly_German_Truths It seems we agree, at least, on what he wanted people to hear - 'will yourself to ignore the rational part of your mind in order to believe this bullshit I'm laying on you.' That is, actually, the core of religion when they tell you to have 'faith'.
The disagreement we have seems to arise from the intent of the words he actually used.
I'm pointing out that with regards to vocabulary, 'circumnavigate' is indeed wrong in this context, but again, these things are carefully scripted, rehearsed, and staged. Sometimes, to get the more desirable effect on those listening to the spiel, the 'incorrect' word serves better than the correct one. 'Circumvent' is bad in this context. It has a 'dishonest' meaning. Misusing the word 'circum-navigate' is more neutral, in addition to which it sounds similar and has two more syllables, allowing it to sound more 'impressive'.
It might be a simple mistake. That's certainly a possibility, but I don't think it was. As I said, carefully scripted, rehearsed, staged. Just like any other product, the language you use (or misuse) is important if you want to sell it.
In some contexts, 'I ain't got no X' might deliver a message better than saying 'I don't have any X', even though the former is a grammatical nightmare. I don't pretend to be an English professor, but I do know that HOW you say something is sometimes more important than saying it 'correctly'.
All that said, I agree that his spiel was repugnant on more than one level. The believers will eat that shit up. Those who think about what he said will realize that he's a lying, dishonest bastard, regardless of vocabulary.
We good?
I think at this point, you can decisively end any argument with IP by simply saying "Dude, you do not even know what logic is. Go read a book and educate yourself. Then we'll talk."
@TDV you dont have to take him on word, you can check the truth of his statement yourself. Anyway @anticitizenx: i thought you had something to say at 13:10 :D you have a good video explaining an option on how to deal with that problem.
that wouldnt work since the book he would read sould be the bible.
AntiCitizenX •••
Dude, do you not even know what Logic is? Do you not realize what Marty has done with this video? •••
Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet they haven't taught the science of Logic in those same State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
William Springer haha did you just seriously ask the man who’s content is 2/3s philosophy of science and has multiple primers of logic as well as hours of meditations on logic if he knows what logic is?
@Trolltician shoo.
"Bitch please" might be the greatest Martymer reaction since "Of course"
Or "The source cited is the author's ass."
It's now officially my favorite truth value, at least for now.
@@zemorph42 Agreed. This is now the constant I will use for programming 'false' values in a boolean variable from now on.
When you constantly have to ask yourself whether this person is incompetent or lying, then he's lying. Honest people would admit their mistakes, correct errors, and then learn from that experience over time. IP never does this. He just repeats the same old story, no matter how wrong it has been shown to be. That's lying, in my book.
I don't think that is true. Even noticing a mistake requires a bit of competence. Isn't that one piece of Dunning-Kruger effect?
@@jirihavel9766 Pretending to be an expert in something you obviously have not studied in any detail is dishonest. Clinging to that alleged expertise when qualified people tell you that you're wrong is even more dishonest.
Jesus christ prove something for once in your life rather than continue spouting nonsense just like you do in your useless videos
AntiCitizenX Make a new video on something. Everyone’s self isolating so you got not excuse. I miss you 😢
@ordinary walker dude, I'm an atheist as well, and I also think religion is fucking stupid. That's still no excuse to be an insufferable dickwad.
I like to think that the relationship that grammar has to reality is the same as the relationship that logic has to reality. Our enthymematic descriptions of reality rely on proper grammatical structure, just as our syllogistic descriptions of reality rely on valid logical structure; but in both cases, these structures are oriented with respect to our *descriptions* of reality rather than reality itself. Ironically, the apologist who makes use of transcendental arguments in which logic plays the role of some entity that maintains reality's structure, is employing the fallacy of reification.
great work as always Marty
Exactly. Grammar is about the choice and ordering of words in sentences to convey meaning, just as logic is about the choice and ordering of statements to convey an internally consistent idea.
AnticiztizenX made a series of great videos about this very subject.
@@Arrakiz666 Gordon Freeman is on youtube!?
_I kid, I am a big fan of ACX, and his handle always makes me think of the level of the same name in Half-Life 2 :)_
I hate when I'm not sure I understand something fully (and hate admitting it almost as much). Am I in the ballpark if I take it that you're talking about confusing symbol with referent?
On the other hand, they DO kind of have a point that one might be able to think of logic as our description of the way that existence 'behaves' for lack of a better word. That is to say, we observe that existence is such that things are what they are, are not what they are not, and aren't neither or both. In that albeit trivial sense, I think it could be fair to think of classical logic as being in some sense descriptive of the nature of reality.
I think IP should change his name to Insipid Apologetics
Inspired Full-a-sophistry.
Incomprehensible Polemic
@@chrisose Yeah, I like the way your idea keeps his initials "IP" :)
Maybe "Insipid Pseudo-philosophy"? :)
@@munstrumridcully InsipidPRATT?
Maybe "intelligence paucity"
I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on
awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a
virgin in the morning.
- Aleister Crowley
Like Ben Franklin, a horribly unsuitable person to emulate but nonetheless a person with many words of wisdom. Seriously Ben Franklin was Scary, duplicitous, and a Harvey Weinstien of his Day.
But history is written by the Victors and he was very famous for self-publishing, practically inventing the American hegeomonic media landscape.
@Diogenes TheDog I'd love to think they do but they haven't been exactly "protecting us from all Domestic threats" if those threats are lying to Americans From the seats of Government.
ray Williams •••
Do you have any idea how disgracefully Marty has eviscerated the science of Logic here ?
Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of Logic for more than a century?
The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
He as returned!
10:20 you're right, there is no r in Gödel, but there is an o with an umlaut, which is pronounced very similarly to the letter r. Pronouncing it like "Goddle" is just incorrect.
Hey, 2 years later I am going to be that dick who says that Marty being a natve Swedish speaker knows how to say ö and does it quite well in his pronunciation of Gödel.
I remember seeing that video. I had many (some which were surprisingly fruitful) conversations about logic on that video. But somehow magically all my comments and conversations have disappeared. When normally when I visit an old video I once commented on, they are on the top of the page. What could have happened to them? I wonder.
OnePieceNation I have suffered similar at the dishonest hands of IP. Sometimes I could see my comments disappear in hours, and a few times within minutes.
IP is profoundly dishonest in my experience. The final straw was when I provided a rational criticism of the standards of his scholarship on one of his videos. I was proclaimed to be a troll and banned, with all my commentary disappearing moments later.
Wow -- Martymer did a good enough job of making the guy look like an idiot, but your stories demonstrate him to be an insecure prick as well.
Plastic Vision •••
Well, I don't know about this guy IP, but Marty suckered you guys pretty good. He absolutely gutted the science of propositional logic in this video. Never even bothered to mention the words "sound" or "cogent". Do you know Why ? For the same reason that the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. Dumbing down the masses is the Name of the game . The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
Speaking of logic, I once had a discussion that was so heated, I get wound up whenever the topic of Math vs Logic is brought up. I explain to this one guy how logic is a form of math, because he couldn't fathom the fact that logic was being taught in a math major when I used to be in college. He kept repeating his weak point that that's not the case because his "computer science professor says so", that "math is not a requirement to get into programming", and that I shouldn't doubt him because I'm not a professor. He never explained how they're two completely separate things.
First of all, there's a reason why the boolean value "true" is called a "nonzero" value in regards to programming. In binary, "true" is "1", and "false" is 0 (in fact, it's the language computers speak in). "False" being zero, and "true" being any number that's not zero (hence the phrase "nonzero").
"Or" is an additive word, whereas "and" is a multiplicative word.
"True and False" returns "False" the same way as "1 x 0" returns zero.
"(True and True) or False" returns "True" the same way as "(4 x 2) + 0" returns a number that isn't zero.
Both the statements "True != False" and "10 != 5" return True.
With all these observations about the similarities between basic, numeric operations and logistic operations, I can safely say that logic is, in fact, a fucking form of math. And I wouldn't bat an eye if logic was being taught under a math major (in fact, it's required in order to properly prove theorems). I get that some colleges are not designed the same, but the argument that "logic is not in the math major in my college, therefore it's not a form of math" is bullshit given the above reasons.
Eltro920 •••
Professor Peter Kreeft claimed in his logic text "Socratic Logic" that he had never heard anyone but a professional philosopher use mathematical logic in a discussion or debate .
Why do you suppose that is ? Is mathematical logic basically useless in discussion or debate ? And if it is , what good is it to anyone attempting to solve real-world problems , or understand real -world deception?
The science of propositional logic is obviously more useful in the real world, and that's probably why it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
My favorite truth value will always be 'bitch, please'.
InspiringSophistry
Intellectual Penury.
Though to be frank I find arrogant, slimy, dishonest little fuck, to pretty much say it all.
intelligence paucity
Insipid Prattling
Somebody has to replace William Lane Craig after he retires. IP was in the military so I hope he uses the education grants to get the dual-PhD status that WLC has.
Zachary Eicher•••
Marty just gutted the science of Logic right before the eyes of his flock, and they have no idea.
That's only half the solutions to the equation. -i is the second. And yes, complex numbers are bloody well understood. For instance they are part of the basis for all digital communication.
And there fun to work with!
@@enki354 They allow you to solve any quadratic equation (not just the ones with positive numbers under the square root sign).
@@chbu7081 true, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. i assume morten kristiansen was talking about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform , which is... well, the basis for modern day digital signal transmission. and that's just one of many areas of university-level mathematics where complex numbers are vital.
@@chbu7081 You must have read me in the wrong column. I never texted anything about the quadratic equation.
@@enki354 Quadratic equations are one of the areas where 'i' is useful.
Was having a pretty good sunday so far. Had a great breakfast. Wife and I took our nephews to see the new lego movie, had a good time. Came home and see a new Martymer video. Day just keeps getting better.
Cluckery Duckery
If Marty had actually taught your nephews something useful about the science of Logic, it would have been much better.
He could have explained that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence
16:20 The funnier part of this is that "I" is an imaginary number, as it's the square root of a negative number.
Concerning IP'S position, there is a form of thought called Paraconsistent logic which attempts to resolve things like the Liar's Paradox or Russell's Paradox by effectively rejecting the Law of the Excluded Middle.
The Liar Paradox is actually something philosophers talk about. If you want a good, detailed breakdown of it, there's one on the Carneades.org TH-cam channel. I can't remember what it's called. Some attempted solutions to the paradox do involve potential truth values other than true and false. I'm not really a fan of IP, but in the name of intellectual honesty I feel I have to point this out.
Oh, you do address it. You're just contesting his formulation. Never mind. Should've watched the whole video before commenting. I'm a dumbass! :P
I can't recall who said it or what specific point was being addressed, but there is a saying, "Wear the glasses of logic if you must, and you will see the logic in the glasses."
Ken Logsdon •••
Well, you won't have to worry about Marty honestly teaching you the science of Logic. This video pseudo logic for slaves
IP-s video is so obviously geared towards people, who don't want to think on their own, but want buzzwords and a smart-sounding "position" to defend. Not only is the logic in the video false, as demonstrated by Martymer, but in it IP also tries so hard to sound smart, quoting and misinterpreting the work of people far more intelligent than him. It's hilarious actually.
The premises don't follow either. Each premise must follow from the previous. His doesn't, nor does he understand logic at all it seems.
I used to think it was funny, but as you said there are real people eating this up and spreading it because they don't know how wrong it is.
@@nunyabisnass1141 You are eating this video up because it is full of strawmen and things IP never said:
inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/illogical-propaganda-of-martymer81/
@@nunyabisnass1141 The biggest strawman is at the beginning the video because IP is addressing skeptics of logic known as academic or epistemic skeptics. He isn't talking about skeptics such as atheists. This video is pretty embarrassing.
LogosTheos not really embarrassing. He does say that he assumes he means atheists, which is a little irresponsible, but what we're talking about in this thread is how in ip's comment section of this video, are people in his camp also assuming hes talking about atheists, and ip never corrects or clarifys that he isn't referring to atheists, so the assumption is allowed to stand. In other videos he does make such a distinction, but its limited to the context of those specific videos. If its wrong in that it doesn't specifically refer to atheists, then in some small way he's complicit in the error by simple omission.
Now i don't expect ip to be held resonsible for many of the idiotic things his subscribers misinterpret or project onto ip's content, but he obviously doesn't see his messages as being educational, or the errors being important enough judging by how little he corrects his own subscribers, and the rampancy in which his own subs get ip's own words wrong, while hes in a discussion with him. I've seen it many many times over the years, even to the point where a very small minority of his subs have bullied and harrassed disenting opinions, where he also did absolutely nothing about.
So no ip may not have said atheists specifically, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with others saying it for him, and acting upon that assumption.
And yet, the most depressing part of IP's video is the comment section. It's filled with people who absolutely believe atheists try to disprove logic, because he said so.
Because nothing is more reasonable than not investigating claims.
Holy shit, you're right. Even though he didn't provide a single example. That's hilarious.
All of his videos are like that. Dur her silly atheists deny logic. These people have no idea of what ip is talking about in the first place, and often can't stay on topic long enough to learn anything as you attempt to correct their misunderstandings. Its literally i cant trust anything you say because ip said so, even when he didn't. I wasted many hours trying to correct the bullshit on thst channel, and all ican say is that most of them are flat out delusional. Which is funny because the rational channel had a nice back and forth with ipon his video about delusions. I recomend checking it out th-cam.com/video/tRhH7XEhsSk/w-d-xo.html. But the thing is he usually says he's being taken out of context, despite his arguments being directly quoted in the context he used, and even denied that actual scientists, mathmeticians, and engineers dont agree with his laymenship.
IP also prescribes to the bad logic of asking "can you prove that ATHEISM is true"... so what do you expect from his fans? It's basically WLC if he played amateur football.
Remember, apologetics isn't about convincing skeptics, it's about reinforcing beliefs to those whom already believe.
NaCl3
Wow. Martymer needs more subs.
As NaCl3 says, This can't be stressed enough.
Alessandro Rodriguez •••
Yep, Marty just absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video . He definitely deserves more rubes to sucker
This is how biologists must feel like when the creationists talk about evolution. I mean I get how they're wrong with evolution as well but as a mathematician I get really frustrated at how much they butcher logic and math in such a stupid way.
The woefully underused 'Bitch, please' logical domain.
"Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority." ~Dr. Who, the 2nd Doctor.
@TDV I know enough to recognize that people who buy into IP's and other Christian Apologist wannabes philosophical bullshit certainly don't have a clue.
@TDV When empirical testing and demonstrable facts are involved skeptical atheists win every time. Christian Apologetics falls apart when it involves anything more substantial than vacuous claims.
@TDV I doubt it. Seems more likely you failed to come up with anything original for a retort.
Deep Ashtray •••
You bought Marty's pseudo-logic for slaves , hook, line and sinker. He gutted the science of Logic right before your eyes , and you didn't have a clue
@@williamspringer9447 Than you can enlighten me.
"There's no 'r' in 'Gödel'."
You are indeed correct, but this isn't something you should nitpick about.
While infants are able to detect a _wide_ variety of vowel formants (and can even do this while still in the womb), during childhood, a neurological process called "pruning" takes place, where similar formants that don't have any useful distinction in your native language all start to be interpreted the same by the brain. Ultimately, it's unnecessary clutter in the mind, and our brains process speech faster after we get rid of it. At the neurological level, the pathways that would allow the listener to hear the difference have been abandoned and withered away.
By the time we reach adolescence, this process has been completed and it takes _great_ effort to learn new ones. Many listeners literally _cannot_ recognize the difference between "ö" and "ur". They just don't seem to hear it. (Also, many Americans pronounce the words "caught" and "cot" the same, but many do not. Curiously, to the ones who pronounce them the same, they also sound the same when spoken by someone who pronounces them differently.)
This is the reason everyone who learns a second language after about the age of 12 will end up with an accent which seems conspicuous to native speakers of that language, and also a reason that American schools should require foreign-language education long before high school. By that time, it's far too late, and becomes more difficult for students.
As an aside, I find psycholinguistics to be a very interesting field of study, and I suspect you would be fascinated by it. If you find this presentation by Stephen Pinker interesting, you should consider the field if you have to deal with "Continuing Education" requirements. See: th-cam.com/video/Q-B_ONJIEcE/w-d-xo.html
I'm curious how many people perceive an "r" in "Gödel" here:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Kurt_g%C3%B6del.ogg
@@preflex3502 I can tell the difference, by only if I'm paying close attention. I imagine I would confuse the two all the time in conversation.
@@williamspringer9447 I agree, but I don't understand what your remarks have to do with my comment.
Preflex •••
The human mind tends to commit known avoidable errors in reasoning . These errors tend to make us vulnerable to various forms fallacious reasoning and deceptive rhetoric ,and are very useful to our leaders . That why the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto.
And that's why Marty absolutely gutted the science of Logic in this video
@@williamspringer9447 Let me get this straight. You commented. I responded in agreement but questioned your comment's relevance in this thread. You deleted your comment and then posted the same crap again.
Why are you responding to _me_?
The big problem with just saying something can be declared not a proposition is that I don't think that there is an "effective procedure" for determining if a statement is a proposition.
A lot of Christian philosophy (a rich heritage) gets stuck in the middle ages, it just never goes beyond Kant, and regurgitates everything before him with modern presentation.
Chris Ray ••••
Would you agree that the argument that man walked on the Moon is illogical ? Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of propositional logic for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
"Bitch, Please!"
I think that is my favorite truth value.
IP: laws of logic are not true because... it was logically prooven.
@@RandomBeing101 I would suggest you be more specific. Your comment is to vague.
Hsfhtdks Dnlspzsk •r
The argument that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was illogical.
The argument that man walked on the Moon is illogical .
@@williamspringer9447 "The argument that man walked on the Moon is illogical."
Validate this claim with evidence. Now.
When I was in my "philosophy phase" I made the mistake of thinking that "If the laws of any logical system are equivalent, and they work exactly the same regardless of the universe we're in, then that must imply that the laws of logi are the basis for the laws of physics!" (that's a fallacy).
_"He confused but he got the spirit!"_ is what I would say to my past self.
It's true that logic (along with other tools) is used to _empirically derive_ the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean "logic = meta-physics".
It's true that, no matter what sort of alien language we use, logic works the same, *because abstract objects are not the same as their representations.* For instance, the numerical value of unary "11" can be represented as "10" in big-endian binary, or "2" in ternary (or greater). We could even replace arabic-digits by latin-letters ("012" = "ABC"). Boolean values can be represented in many ways: on, off, 1, 0, white, black, up, down, etc... *The representation is different, but the underlying value is the same.*
Anyways, thanks for posting this video!
Brilliant video Marty!
Rob's Backyard Astrophotography •••
Are you kidding me ? Marty might as well be from The Ministry of Truth, with this eviscerate crippled version of the science of Logic that was presented here .
I really want to see the formal logic theory that includes “bitch please” as a truth value! 😂
Jamal Wills •••
Marty will probably do another pseudo science Logic class for slaves later on. It'll probably be i there .
Excuse me while I go pound my head against the desk for a few minutes. Lord but that boy (IP) is one ignorant son. He know nothing, Jon Snow.
But he likes to say he knows so much more than others... that must count for something :D
I kind of have an issue with the principle of bivalence. I've done research (as in, I was an employee at a university and got paid for my work) in logics and this principle isn't as useful as it may seem at first.
While working within a set of internally consistent premises in first order logic, it does hold. But once you move to different logics you start running into issues really quickly. In higher order logics, you can also reason about sets. But then you run into Russell's Paradox where you can define the set of all sets, which both must contain and not contain itself to exist.
First order logic is extremely limited. Even something as simple as the natural numbers cannot be properly defined using only first order logic. If you want to model time-related systems, you're also going to have to expand first order logic with temporal operators. This was the field I was doing research on. While first order logic is already incredibly complex to model systems in, it really only gets worse from there. Both from the point of specifying the system and actually evaluating your proposition. But those are still decidable, even if it takes many times the age of the universe for some problems. You can easily come up with logics in which you can have undecidable propositions where you can prove there is a solution, but you can also prove it is impossible to compute.
We're getting into computer science here, I just wanted to point out how there is not one form of logic that does or does not have certain rules. There is a vast landscape it internally consistent and useful logics. This alone makes this generally "philosophical" logic extremely iffy. As long as you're not clearly defining which logic you are using (and actually use the proper notation), you're never going to get very far. The math is King. You're also not building a bridge simply by reasoning blindly about what might work. You reason in a controlled fashion on top of a solid foundation. Without that foundation, the rest is useless. I know you also touched on this in the video, I just wanted to point out how horrible things get as you go down the rabbit hole...
Niosus Excellent exposition! To be fair logicians do engage with the kinds of distinctions you touch on here and the field has expanded massively in philosophy to encompass more than just first order logic.
Interestingly, IP appeals to modal logic (actually a subtle misrepresentation of it) in another video. When I pointed out that the soundness of the argument depended on your a priori presupposition in accepting/rejecting a key premise, he blocked me from posting and in the process all my comments disappeared from the thread.
IP clearly has no interest in being intellectually honest where his beliefs are concerned, despite protesting he follows where the argument and evidence leads.
All very sad.
@@plasticvision6355 I have to grant you that I'm not really up to date with the philosophical side of logic. I only approached things from a computer science point of view where we tried to model systems and prove that they have certain properties. We were also looking at generating behavior from a set of (temporal) logic constraints.
Clearly that doesn't involve a lot of philosophy. Although there was one fundamental question that we never were to answer in both a satisfying and useful way: "What is an action?" An action implies that you "do something" to change the world. But actions in real life can fail to attain their goal. They can have unexpected side effects. They may not change the world at all. So how do you express that logically in a useful way you can reason with. The first, most obvious choice is a probabilistic logic. But then you need to figure out what the odds are of all the outcomes, which also implies you need to know these outcomes in the first place. This didn't sit right and also would not work for the systems we were trying to model. So then we tried different ways of modeling actions in temporal logic. But then it becomes really hard to make the action both "useful" and not a guaranteed outcome. If you model the world such that it can make the action fail, nothing stops it from making it fail every time making that action useless. If you do force the world to respond to your action eventually, either you over-constrain the world, or it actually still ends up being able to ignore the action by making the side effects of the action force the system into a loop.
I've spent months trying to solve this specific question, without any useful results. The literature also does nor have satisfying solutions. And that's for something as silly as the effect of an action. Anyone who thinks they can reason a God into or out of existence... I think it's just a ridiculous proposition. We're still have trouble formally reasoning about the mundane.
Niosus This is an interesting response. I want to give you some information, or at least a perspective, which might help you in understanding the interface.
Niosus Theistic arguments are simplistic in that their conclusions can be made to fit anything defined as a god. The more they specify the more they have to justify. Conversely, the more nebulous the definition, the more it ceases to be of practical use.
As you say, it’s more a case of simplistic naval gazing in a futile attempt to bridge the gap between metaphysics and reality.
The problem is endemic to all claims for the existence of the supernatural; the gap simply can’t be bridged.
Or put more bluntly, theists have had over 2,000 years to formulate a simple logically valid and sound syllogism and not one of these wishful thinking geniuses has managed to achieve even that simple goal, let alone consider problems of the kind you are grappling with.
So sad.
@@plasticvision6355 yeah, I totally agree. It's been shown pretty clearly that deductive reasoning is not an effective way to learn about the reality we live in. Only the brute force scientific method has been effective. I call it brute force because what it comes down to is trying stuff and seeing what sticks. It's not particularly elegant, but it works.
Like you said. humans spent thousands of years trying to figure it out using logic alone. Once we discovered the scientific method, we put a man on the moon just a few hundred years later. It doesn't matter what you think, or what you prove using logic. It works. If your theory goes against what we've discovered using the scientific method, shut up, go home, and try again. Reality doesn't care about our feelings.
Reality doesn't owe us to make sense. Frankly I'm surprised it behaves as consistently as it does. I can't see why it needs to be like that. That to me is a much bigger mystery than the existence of a God. Even if a God exists, I still want to know why things are the way they are...
I refuse to listen to you Martymer, because you aren’t using an emotionally manipulative music bed to emotionally manipulate me! ;)
Jason Wright •••
Oh, Marty manipulated you plenty with this video. And due to State controlled schools and media, you have no idea the insult that he has offered your intellect .
William Springer turn your joke detector on, or have it repaired.
Jason Wright •••
Turn on your irony detector, because your hero Marty just absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video.
William Springer I’ve been a fan of his for so long I can’t even remember when I subscribed. Maybe at the start. Love the guy
You should make one on his newer consciousness series
@15:52 I agree with your argumentation, but (depending on what he meant by "epistemologically") I'd say that there is a psychological difference between 100% abstract, relatively-recently invented concepts like "i", versus simpler math concepts derived, in ancient times, from everyday objects: counting numbers, areas, fractions etc. These simpler concepts are easily relatable: two apples fill you more than one apple, half an apple fills you less than one apple, you can experience 3 dimensions (a thread, a paper, a cube). The more recent, abstract concepts like 4-or-more dimensions, or "i", aren't as accessible mentally, it takes training to productively manipulate them, like tools. Though I'm not sure if this is the point he tried to make. Maybe he meant that ALL math concepts (simple or abstract) lack some external "justification", besides their human definitions, because we cannot experience them directly...
Schrodinger's proposition, or super propositions; do these only exist as thought experiments? I don't know what they're actually called but it appears they have some use in physics that as a lay person I never really understood. Unless it is exactly the point of i.
It's superposition, nothing to do with pRopositions (note the r). It's a rather tricky part of quantum physics, that I don't think I can explain in a TH-cam comment, but maybe Google can help you, now you know the correct spelling.
@@KaiHenningsen I wasn't using position. I deliberately wrote proposition. Notice how I used Schrodinger first. The idea that something can be "dead" or false and "alive" or true at the same time. I was trying to bridge a comparison to this kind of thought experiment.
Ah yes, the Bitch Please" truth value, one of my favorites.
KamiRecca •••
If that's a good con , I'm sure Marty will use it to sucker these rubes. He just absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video, and none of them had a clue.
Omg omg omg omg, a new Martymer video!
Emil simonsen •••
Marty's the best at suckering the Rubes . He taught a version of Logic here that keeps em nice and stupid .
14:00 could you go into Russell's Theory of Types in some future video?
i would particularly be interested to hear what new problems it introduces.
EDIT: oh, i think i may be mixing something up... that solved the Barber Paradox, not the Liars Paradox (or could it do both?)
From what little I remember of type theory (in a course taught by Alonzo Church!), it also addresses the Liar's Paradox. When you start talking about propositions in simple predicate calculus, you are talking about something with a higher-level 'type'.
Silkwesir •••
Marty just absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video .He didn't even bother to explain how to determine if a deductive argument is sound or and inductive argument cogent. But then, if he did that he might actually be teaching his audience a tiny bit about reasoning properly. And hes not going to do that.
The science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. Why do you suppose that is? I guarantee that Marty knows exactly why that is . The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
13:10 another simple solution is: if the truth status of the sentence has no influence on my decisional process, the sentence is labeled false. "This sentence is false"? False, because i have no practical way to use the truth status of that sentence. "Brain in a vat"? False, for the same reasoning. There was a cool video by anticitizenx explaining this topic throughly.
At some point, like most people, I asked the question, “who created god” and “where’d god come from.” This was - of course - in response to adults using god to explain all of existence.
Personally, any discussions beyond this simple question are nonsensical, since most arguments used to explain why god must exist can be turned around to explain the existence of the “creator of god” & why this “thing” must exist. I have never heard a believer address this paradox or even attempt to do so. Blank stares or verbal nonsense is what I got back. F-ing dishonest asses, IMHO.
Again; everything beyond this simple question seem illogical to me. Why proceed until this critical, first principle by definition, issue (we are discussing where shit came from, by the way) is addressed! Indeed!
JJV
Jim Vrbanac ••
At some point, you should ask why they teach our kids the theory of evolution in school, yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of Logic for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto ••
Hey , maybe you can ask Marty about that , and he can lie to you about the science of Logic some more.
One way to know that IP needs to learn more about logic is that, in his chains of reasoning, he labels everything except his final conclusion a premise, even when they are in fact conclusions based on previous lines.
@@RandomBeing101 Be specific. No one will take you seriously if you make vague claims about someone being wrong without providing details.
Michael Sommers •••
And what can we infer from the fact that Marty forgot to mention that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence in this video? How about the fact that he didn't even mention inductive reasoning?
@@williamspringer9447 _Logical_ arguments, by definition, do not depend on evidence; they only depend on their premises and the rules of inference.
Thanks for the lesson. I have never really understood logic and the whole proposition stuff.It would be nice to think IP would learn something but I doubt that if it helps to recruit people to his cause!
wheels5894 •••
Marty just gutted the science of Logic with this video . He didn't even explain that a deductive argument must also be sound to be logical .. He never even explained how to determine if an inductive argument is cogent . He left you just as intellectually crippled as you were before .
Defining a proposition as that which must have a truth value is all well and good but it doesn't really solve the problem. Even if the Liar's Paradox is not a proposition with a truth value, there are propositions *about* it. The statement "the Liar's paradox is true" is a proposition as much as "the Liar's paradox is false" and if we accept either proposition as true or false, we run into the same problem.
ok the idea of "bitch, please" being a valid value in formal logic made me laugh a bit more then it should have
Lol IP gets beaten by the strawman of his own construction. That's a new level of fail.
Self-replicating whatnot •••
Marty eviscerated the science of Logic right before your eyes with this video , and you never had a clue .
Was the logic stuff part of your education to become a teacher or something you persued out of your own interest?
Logic courses would have been part of the mathematics education he would have received as part of his physics background.
@@ScttDynamite220 Yup. If you study math, you'll take courses that include formal symbolic logic pretty early on.
Yeas but beyond the basics not much else is required in the area of logic, so Martymer81 likely taught himself some other things or picked it up in other courses/from other professors if I had to guess.
@@ThePharphis True, but being taught the basics is worth a lot.
agreed! Set Theory/Discrete Structures and probably Abstract Algebra were some of my favourite classes
I found a website that talks about the liar's paradox, and it has this sentence, claiming it to be a paradox:
"This sentence is either false or meaningless."
www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/#SH1a
True; everything is either a banana or not a banana, completely useless information, but it's true.
Collab with ACX when?
I'd be happy to tag-team with him next time IP says something stupid, but collabs are tricky in that it involves two people's schedules, and neither one of us have a lot of time to devote to making videos. But never say never.
IP is arguing against absolute skepticism/or academic skepticism:
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html
Not skeptics as in atheists or naturalists. So there is a huge misrepresentation at the very beginning of the video that sets a discouraging tone for the rest.
Then he's not talking about anyone and any ideas that form this community. He's arguing against people who don't exist or at least aren't represented here in the slightest. So where's the argument? Who do he and his followers believe he is making it against?
@@senorpoopEhead They do exist. Here is a video showing arguments for epistemic skepticism which is the philosophical position IP is arguing against in his video:
th-cam.com/video/pBlDGTZUOek/w-d-xo.html
His comment section very clearly shows that all of this fans interpreted it to mean "atheists," and IP never once corrects them on this.
So you're saying, @@LogosTheos, that IP is making an argument against such a rare type of skeptic that we have to go out of our way to find such a person? Why in the world would he do that?
"IP is arguing against absolute skepticism/or academic skepticism"
If he is, he never declared that. I'm completely justified thinking he's just trying to paint Naturalism as illogical, because this seems the goal of his video to me. If it isn't, it's IP fault to not properly convey his thoughts... maybe he needs to study some logic to do that, since it's the field that deals with it.
"So there is a huge misrepresentation at the very beginning of the video that sets a discouraging tone for the rest.
"
Like, defining "Logic" wrong?? In a way that includes characteristics logic doesn't have because they are fundamental for his (flawed anyway, what a fail) arguement?
4:40 "Honestly I've never come across this argument from a skeptic"
Alex Malpass sometimes says that he doubts the law of non-contradiction, because maybe the liars paradox is a contradiction, he doesn't know. (Not quite as strong as concluding they are false, like IP formulated it.) He says he's open to there being real contradictions out there, if he encountered one in the distant universe he wouldn't reject it just based on dogmatic adherence to the law.
The problem is that THINGS aren’t contradictory (at least in the logical sense), but rather statements/labels are. So I’m not quite sure what Alex could even have in mind when he made that claim. Independent of any labels/categorization, things simply are whatever they are. And it seems completely meaningless to say that they could be ‘contradictory’.
@@fanghur Interesting point! I know Alex is aware of it, he has an article ranting about how the laws of logic are about propositions not objects, and apologists are getting it wrong when they take "A = A and A =/= not-A" for the law of non-contradiction, and plug in objects like an apple.
I'll have to think more about what he meant by finding a contradiction out there in the universe somewhere.
Good one! Thanks Fanghur :)
I reject your reality and substitute it with my own 😁👍
The rallying cry of every tinhorn despot, tyrant and authoritarian everywhere.
@@kenlogsdon7095 no, this is simply a line from a tv show..
@@robertlinke2666 yes but it's funny and it applies
HEY N/A.. You have my old account's name
N/A N/A •••
I reject the actual science of logic, and replace it with this eviscerated nonsense that Marty has produced in this video.
Absolutely love your work, man; more please!
Dave Beech •••
My God, are you serious. Marty absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video . Can't you see that ?
Marty, you forgot to include "according to the rules of _induction_ or _abduction_ " the other two forms of reason besides _deduction_ . :)
munstrumridcully •••
Yeah , Marty "FORGOT" that didn't he? He also forgot to explain that a valid deductive argument must also be sound before it can be considered logical. He also forgot to explain that the vast majority of our decision making is inductive rather than deductive . He also forgot to explain that the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
@@williamspringer9447 Good points! 😊
I guess he doesn't have the time to give a full lecture on propositional logic.
It's so true that almost all the decisions we make result from (often unconscious/subconscious) inductive reasoning. Our experiences, imo, shape our decisions even more so than our genetic heritage. Imo, we draw upon our experiences inductively to shape our actions.
munstrumridcully •••
Marty absolutely gutted the science of Logic with this video . He taught his audience precisely nothing about logic that they didn't already know and practice naturally. Show me a reasonably intelligent person who will believe an invalid deductive argument? I've never met one. Nine out of ten Americans still believe, however, that man walked on the Moon; even though that argument is far from being inductively cogent
@@williamspringer9447 at work. Will read your comments and reply this evening. Just wanted you to know i am not ignoring your points.
munstrumridcully •••
I 'll look forward to your thoughts . Thank you .
Martymer, do you use products from a pharmacy or a distillery to combat the stress of knowing people like IP exist?
Since religion is the opiate of the masses, and I am a skeptic in the minority, I go straight to actual opium ;)
AnimusTelum •••
Marty's too busy suckering people like you with pseudo logic videos like this one
@@williamspringer9447 It's been a while since I've seen the video, but from what I recall, IP was attempting to use logic to disprove logic. Which is kinda like using brain surgery to disprove the existence of brains.
I haven't been in the argument-o-sphere for a while, as recent events have degraded to such an extent that any sort of public forum is now the internet equivalent of an orgy but one dude has mono.
With all that said, Marty has kinda blurred together with Darkmatter, TJ, and the general population of r/atheism to me. The only marker of distinction is that he's actually educated.
AnimusTelum •••
At 9:05 this deceptive nonsense came out of Marty's mouth: "Logic doesn't deal with how we know a that a statement about external reality is true or false. That's epistemology , not logic. Logic doesn't deal with the content of an argument , it only deals with the form of argument . Is the argument internally consistent ? Is it valid? " ••••
This is how you dumb down the masses. This is how you make slaves. Strip the science of Logic of its power to expose real-world deception. Marty wishes to limit logic to deductive arguments only, and then only to deductive validity , completely suppressing the most important law of logic : LOGICAL ARGUMENTS MUST BE PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE, OR THEY ARE NOT LOGICAl.
Marty won't even tell you that a deductive argument can be valid , without being sound (logical). He doesn't mention inductive reasoning at all, or what requirements an argument must satisfy to be inductively cogent. (Most of our real-world reasoning is inductive rather than deductive.)
Why is that?
Here's some information about the science of Logic that you may find useful. •••
The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is very hard to deceive people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of Logic or the art of rhetoric. •••
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
@@williamspringer9447 I really have no investment in this sort of thing anymore. Please go back on your meds.
Doubt is the main weapon of the apologist. They just keep distorting reality in the hope that it will confuse the listener into accepting the religion Must be the default position.
Keep up the good work.
Doubt and fear.
Let's except that he's trying to be you,and he's preatty shit at it. Marty keep educating these people..
Was it a slip of the tongue when you said logic "actually is a branch of mathematics?" My understanding is that it's the other way around and mathematics is a branch of logic. A system of logic is basically a set of abstract rules that always produces a specific output when you feed in a specific input. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure mathematics is the subcategory of logical systems that deal with numbers. Good video, that was just a nitpick that may come down to semantics.
In terms of disciplines logic is generally considered a subset of mathematics. Set theory may be a fundamental basis for much of the rest of mathematics but set theory is still a subset of mathematics. Also attempts to ground all of mathematics within a logic have consistently failed, and I think Bertrand Russell essentially proved it was impossible to reframe all mathematics in logical statements.
@@ronanstephens1597 I'm sorry to say that I haven't read the complete works of Bertrand Russell. Could you point me to where I can find where he essentially proved this? I could see how it would be impossible to ground all of mathematics within a logic because different mathematical systems use different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) axioms. That being said, each individual mathematical system has to follow all the rules for systems of logical, but not all systems of logic are mathematical - at least in the sense that they deal with quantities.
I realize that set theory is commonly thought of as a subset of mathematics, but is that actually accurate? Set theory is a major part of every mathematical system, but as I think you meant to say, it's also a fundamental basis for much of the rest of logic. If you think of the various set theories as systems of logic that can be employed in other systems of logic, like how arithmetic is employed in algebra, everything makes sense. I can see why people consider set theory to be a subset of mathematics, it's what defines pretty much everything that mathematical systems are based on, but that still makes the study of set theory applied to mathematics a subset of the study of set theory in logic.
Sorry if I'm coming off as combative, that's not my intent. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, I'm just pretty sure I'm right on this so I'd like to know exactly where I'm wrong on something if it turns out that I'm wrong.
@@mattlambert3118 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
It was the Principia Mathematica I was remembering. Although I may have explained the point incorrectly. Quoting from the Wikipedia page:
PM was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logicfrom which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy,[1] being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable. However, in 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theoremproved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them.
As for a matter of who's right and wrong, it's really only convention as to whether you say logic is a subset of mathematics or visa versa. I was just starting that generally the discipline of logic is subsumed by the discipline of mathematics, as in say university departments.
@TDV Who got who's point wrong? I can't tell if you're responding to me or Mr. Stephens.
There's a logic math class in my school... Now I understand.
History Center •••
Mathematical logic is useless for understanding real world deception . That's why they teach it . The science of propositional logic however, is extremely useful in that regard . That's why the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. And it's also why Marty butchered it in this video .The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
What is logic? Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smells bad. I thought everyone knew that.
Are you certain your circuits are functioning properly? Your ears are green.
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
it is extremely easy to debunk IP's idea of inserting extra truth values in order to solve the liar's paradox
let T(2) = {t1, t2} be the initial set of truth values where t1 = false and t2 = true
then, let L(2) be the following proposition, L(2) = "this proposition is not t1, and not t2"
therefore we introduce a third value t3 and build T(3) = {t1, t2, t3} and says that the logic value of L(2) is t3
but then we can state proposition L(3) = "this proposition is not t1, not t2 and not t3"
so that he must add a new truth value t4 and build T(4) = {t1, t2, t3, t4} and say that the logic value of L(2) is t4
but then we can state proposition L(4) = "this proposition is not t1, not t2, not t3 and not t4"
...
therefore, given T(n), we can always build proposition L(n) which can not have a truth value which is contained within T(n), forcing us to define to T(n+1), but then we can state L(n+1) as "this proposition is not t0, not t1, ..., not tn and not tn+1"
...
which forces us to keep going on indefinitely, and, even if you consider a set T of infinite truth values, I can still state L = "for every element t of T, t is not the truth value of L"
I'm a graduate student in philosophy.
IP's video made me physically ill.
@TDV Be specific.
@@peppermintgal4302 he is specific. It made him ill. Be more specific on what you need to be more specific.
Explain?
The law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
Self referential statements are not declaratory propositions because there is no truth value to the proposition without the proposition itself. Declaratory propositions are statements that make a claim about the universe that can be determined, but self referential statements don't make any claim.
His statement about 100% truth is stupider than you gave him credit for. If 100% is certainty, then by definition any other percentage is doubt. 90% certain is 10% doubt, 80% certain is 20% doubt, that's literally what the percentage certainty means. Of course you doubt anything that you don't believe 100% because that's what it means to believe something less than 100%.
wwickeddogg •••
The premises of logical arguments should be sufficiently supported by reliable evidence to prove that they are true to the point of practical certainty .
Why didn't Marty mention that logical argument must be properly supported by reliable evidence?
@@williamspringer9447 An argument can be valid and an argument can be sound. A valid argument can lead to a false conclusion if premise is false.
There is no requirement that logical arguments must be supported by reliable evidence. Whether or not you believe a premise of an argument depends on the evidence you have. If you are already aware of the evidence then you don't need any more.
Determining if you should believe a conclusion involves evaluating the evidence for yourself and some arguments don't require any evidence at all.
wwickeddogg ••••
A self-evident premise contains sufficient evidence within itself to prove that it is true; 2+2=4 for example. All other premises supporting a logical argument must be sufficiently supported by reliable evidence to prove that they are true . If you haven't enough reliable evidence to prove that the premise is true , then the premise is questionable at best , and therefore the arguments if fallacious .
••••
Try to get that out of Marty and see what happens. Keeping the masses stupid is the name of the game with these big logic channels on youtube.
@@williamspringer9447 Wow, you are fucking insane, sorry I replied to your comment.
wwickeddogg •••••
My God , it's like I'm dealing with a bunch of zombies here . You've been brainwashed , my man! The science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. That's a fact! Why do you suppose they deliberately don't teach hundreds of millions of people to effectively use the science of classical logic to understand real-world deceptive arguments? Maybe , they forgot ? Wake up! Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened. We've been made into mindless cattle.
For thousands of years the science of logic has held that logical arguments must only be inferred from true premises, therefore we must insure that we are confident that they are true. That means that premise must be properly supported by reliable evidence/self-evident . THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO KNOW THAT A PREMISE IS TRUE ! Now read this and try not to hurt yourself :••••
The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is very hard to deceive people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of Logic or the art of rhetoric. •••
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99
While I understand the confusion of IT'S point and I understand that it wasn't articulated well, at least not in the clip you provided, I think IP meant that anything which is illogical is impossible. This would entail that all things which are logical are *possible* from a metaphysical sense, which I would agree with. There are some arguments made about whether logical possibility and metaphysical possibility are identical, but the strongest case against it has to do with semantic arguments that change definitions. For example, it is logically possible that water could be defined as something other than H2O, but it is metaphysically possible for water to be anything else other than H2O, since it has been defined as such. I think this is a really weak argument because if we allow for different semantics, we dont run into the problem.
All that being said, I think IP could have explained that better.
6:16 Not to be a wiseass or anything, but what if "Socrates lives in Greece, therefore he's in Greece" and "Socrates is on a pilgrimage away from home, therefore he's not in Greece." Both these statements might be true at the moment, and a guy named Socrates lives in Greece, but at the same time, because he's traveling, he's not in Greece. How do we rectify this situation?
By understanding that there's a definition shift between the two "x is in Greece" statements. In the first one, it translates to "x has a residence / owns property in Greece". In the latter one, it translates to "x currently does not occupy a physical space in Greece".
Basically, living in a place doesn't imply you're physically there that moment. If the first statement is true, then the "Socrates is in Greece" part isn't actually the same statement. It's just phrased that way. (Same sort of way two words may have the same spelling but different meanings, just applied to statements)
(There's a few other ways to hash it out, but that's the gist)
Ace Sorou •••
Logical arguments must only be inferred from premises which are true and well supported by reliable evidence. Doesn't that solve your problem ?
Marty forgot to mention that little fact.
You rectify that situation with more informations and analazying definitions. For example, bot can be true at the same time IF i accept 2 people named Socrates, with the name being the focus one Socrates can be in greece and the other not. They can be both true for the same Socrates too, if i'm defining "lives" and "he's in" as "he has a greek citizenship", so that his actual physical location is indifferent. The important part, as I hope to have shown you, is what is meant when something is sayd. If it isn't clear, it has to be cleared before assigning any truth value (unless you're a pragmatist, in wich case unclear proposition for lack of clarity are labeled "false" until more clarity is done).
martymer you should debate steve from nonsequitur on atheism. or maybe on oujji boards?
Debate about what about those?
The only thing Goedel proved was that mathematics is a crutch, however useful, still a crutch - shitting all over Hilbert's / Russel's attempts to formalize it. Too bad the err in their reasoning multiplied beyond the boundaries of their system.
This is actually off topic - however this is an itch I have to scratch. That is, it bugs me.
At about 16:10 you have "Definition: i is defined as the number that satisfies the equation i^2=-1."
Actually this is a poor definition --- mainly because there are two "numbers" when squared will yield -1. That is, if we can extend the real numbers to a field were we have solutions to the polynomial equation, z^2+1=0, we find we have two roots.
Say a and b. In this extension of the reals, z^2-1= (z-a)(z-b). Call one of these roots i. The other will be additive inverse of i, the number -i.
The definition you gave implies uniqueness.
Another, and I think more elegant approach is to associate the reals with 2x2 matrices,r -> the matrix with r on the main diagonal and zeros elsewhere. Now i can be defined by 1 down the main diagonal and -1 in the 2, 1 position and 1 in the 1,2 position. Google imaginary numbers as a 2x2 matrix.
A third approach requires a little linear algebra. Consider a two dimensional vector space over the reals with a basis {(1,0),(0,1)}. Install a "multiplication" by (a,b)*(c,d) = (ac-bd,cb+ad). Show that this makes sense and forms a field. Then i =(0,1). With this approach, one can jump off to the quaternions, where there are four unique solutions to the equation, z^2+1=0.
My rant is over - please go on with your day..
I actually made a mistake. In mentioning quaternions, I said there are four solutions to z^2+1=0. Technically this is correct, because there are at least 6, so there are 4. Are there more than 6? And what are the solutions?
Terry Endicott •••
Symbolic logic is useless for discussion of debate . That's why they teach it . The science of propositional logic however, hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century.
And Marty absolutely gutted the science of propositional logic in this video. Do you know how?
The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
"Everything I say is a lie!"
"That's right! And I am lying!"
That's what IP's (Inane Prattle?) case reminded me of.
16:47 Um, yeah, those "optional" classes covering complex numbers? They weren't optional at my school.
lies damnlies ••••
But surely they taught you the science of propositional logic in school.? I mean , schools deliberately not teaching kids to properly reason doesn't happen in a free society, right?
@@williamspringer9447 Nah. Never. Philosophy courses are an integral part of any Western high scho...oh wait.
Kirk Cameron is the Magellan of Insanity. Circumnavigate the intellect till wrongness is rightness
I believe the answer to Russell's Paradox is the null set. Because there's no solution.
YAY ! He is back !
Like...the whole believing something to be true until proven false is more or less the flip-side to the skeptic coin, right? I ALMOST said that it's like believing a person to be good until they prove they're bad, but no, it's actually not like that: the skeptic approach is most reasonable where logic is concerned.
I agree with everything you said except one thing; the umlaut over the "o" in Godel actually does make it sound like there's an "r" in it. Here's the international phonetic alphabet spelling: ɡɜːrdəl
I doubt even a single person ever converts to monotheism based on his 7-proposition-long discourse on logic. People believe for emotional reasons, to feel reassured and accepted, not because you've constructed the mother of all syllogisms
There is further problem with IP's representation of GT. What "all truth" means? There are consistent theories that allows proving all possible theorems within those theories. It's when we want richer theories we get into the problem of getting improvable theorems.
IP's problem is he thinks logic by itself can prove something is factual in nature. Logic is only a starting point for figuring out how the universe works.
@TDV That requires more explaining on your part.
The one truth is the universe doesn't care what you think about it
John Porteous •••
And the laws and principles that government logical inference don't care if you know how to effectively use them to understand deceptive rhetoric of fallacious reasoning .
And Marty surely doesn't .
Ironically IP was trying to roughly formulate a system of logic where we can always tell the truth value of all statements, and all statements have truth values. And, again ironically, if I get Gödel correctly his idea runs totally against this - we cannot build a flawless logical system where all statements are true or false and we can prove them.
If I am wrong in any way regarding this, I do take corrections with pleasure.
This sounds very much correct actually 👌😁
Gödel says we cannot have a system that only has either true or false premises, but that there is and will always be premises that lack truth values, premises that are neither true or false.
IP doesn't understand this.
So by quoting Gödel he quite literally shot himself in the foot. 👌😁
Isn't the umlaut ö pronounced sort of like an r? That's what my German teacher said
I can’t get how people lack basic reasoning skills. I had a class in logic that the professor made so easy to understand there was no excuse not to pass his class with an A.
This is quite possibly the best video explaining logic I've ever seen - well done!
By the way, in English "bivalence" is pronounced like "buy-vay-lence", though I understand this can be confusing to someone who has never heard it pronounced but is aware of the word "ambivalence". English is a weird language.
Also:
"This statement is bitch, please!" is in fact a nuh-uh statement. (There's something I never thought I'd write.)
Yiab ••••
My God, you have no idea. This video might as well have come directly from the Ministry of Truth. Marty has eviscerated the science of Logic here.
@@williamspringer9447 Please explain.
Yiab •••
At 9:05 this deceptive nonsense came out of Marty's mouth: "Logic doesn't deal with how we know a that a statement about external reality is true or false. That's epistemology , not logic. Logic doesn't deal with the content of an argument , it only deals with the form of argument . Is the argument internally consistent ? Is it valid? " ••••
This is how you dumb down the masses. This is how you make slaves. Strip the science of Logic of its power to expose real-world deception. Marty wishes to limit logic to deductive arguments only, and then only to deductive validity , completely suppressing the most important law of logic : LOGICAL ARGUMENTS MUST BE PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE, OR THEY ARE NOT LOGICAl.
Marty won't even tell you that a deductive argument can be valid , without being sound (logical). He doesn't mention inductive reasoning at all, or what requirements an argument must satisfy to be inductively cogent. (Most of our real-world reasoning is inductive rather than deductive.)
Why is that?
Here's some information about the science of Logic that you may find useful. •••
The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is very hard to deceive people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of Logic or the art of rhetoric. •••
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
@@williamspringer9447 You are conflating a variety of different disciplines and modes of reasoning here, and this equivocation seems to stem from your unstated assumption that logic has not progressed in any significant capacity since Aristotle.
Let me take your ideas in order.
1) Marty is not claiming, as far as I can tell, that logic is the be-all end-all of being reasonable or of understanding the world we live in. He is using the word logic in its mathematical sense (as one should expect of a physicist), and clearly specifically referring to classical logic. In a mathematical setting, evidence is irrelevant and what matters is what can be proven. As such, your purported "most important law of logic" can be summarily dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion.
You seem to think that "logical" is synonymous with "sound", which is generally not the case in my experience.
2) He doesn't mention inductive reasoning because it is a separate discipline from classical logic. You are quite correct that most of our real-world reasoning is inductive rather than deductive, but correct methods of drawing conclusions through inductive reasoning are quite different from (and not entirely inclusive of) correct methods of drawing conclusions through deductive reasoning. As an example, statistical correlation is not transitive, so any attempts to reason deductively about the relationships between properties that have been established inductively risks misapplying deductive principles.
Logic is certainly a part of reasoning, but it is not the whole of reasoning.
3) Logic has progressed immeasurably since Aristotle - for just one example Aristotle had no clue about how to be rigorous and formal in one's reasoning (something which took until Frege for someone to complete in a useful format, in my opinion). Additionally, the way that the term "logic" has come to be used has changed significantly over the last hundred and fifty years or so, especially when it comes to its technical usages. As such, most of your quotes are woefully out of date.
I agree that logic should be taught in all high schools (as well as rhetoric), and that it should be a required class. I will definitely dispute the characterization of logic as a science, however, since (in the way it is being used here) it is totally disconnected from inductive reasoning (which is a major part of the scientific method).
Now, to address your wall of quotes.
Schopenhauer (1831): A priori reasoning is, by definition, reasoning that does not require real-world evidence. The process of correct a priori reasoning, then, cannot be based on evidence. This quote directly contradicts your initial paragraph.
Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary (please include year and version): The provided definition of logic is colloquial, not technical. Likewise the provided definition of infer[ence] does not match the use of the word in formal logic.
Bittle (1935): Bittle was a Franciscan monk and philosopher, with no evident mathematical training. He was clearly using logic in its colloquial sense, as he was writing for a lay audience.
Aristotle: As far as I can tell (not being an expert on Aristotle or on ancient Greek philosophy), this is not relevant to how we are using the term "logic" in this discussion.
Hurley (1985): Does not address the use of the word "logic".
Kahane (1976): Notice that the three points mentioned here are about reasoning **cogently** not about reasoning **logically**. Reasoning **logically** only addresses the first of these points.
Mill (1843): This is an archaic usage of the term, closer to the colloquial in the modern day.
Collins (1713): This does not address the usage of the word "logic".
Schopenhauer (1831): This only addresses the way in which Aristotle used the term "logic", not its modern usages.
Hurley (1985): Again, this does not address the usage of the word logic, unless you assume that fallacies are identical with contra-logical reasoning. In any case, "As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises." quite clearly demonstrates that this quote does not discuss logic in its deductive capacity.
Stebbing (1934): Does not address the usage of the word logic. In fact, since logic quite clearly deals with proofs and the quote contrasts proofs with establishing something to a practical certainty, it is suggestive of using the word in the same way Marty and I have been.
Now, I'll add a few quotes of my own to explain how the word is being used in a modern, often technical context.
"Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity",[1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge."
Wikipedia - Logic and Rationality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality)
"Typically, a logic consists of a formal or informal language together with a deductive system and/or a model-theoretic semantics."
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Classical Logic (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/)
"After G. Frege (1879) and C. Peirce (1885) put the logic of predicates, variables and quantifiers into the language of algebra, it became possible to apply this language to questions in the foundations of mathematics."
Encyclopedia of Mathematics - Mathematical Logic (encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic)
"The formal mathematical study of the methods, structure, and validity of mathematical deduction and proof."
Wolfram MathWorld - Logic (mathworld.wolfram.com/Logic.html)
Yiab •••
That response was masterful. I very much appreciate the art and intellect involved . Obviously I understand that it is a complete appeal to ignorance ; both eristic and sophistic. I'm lacking time and energy right now , and don't feel i can do this response justice without a good deal more thought , but I do invite anybody reading this thread to consider who's explanation of the science of Logic has more usefulness in the real world.••••
Dr .Madsen Pirie defines a logical fallacy as: "Any trick of logic or language which allows a statement or a claim to be passed off as something that it is not ..." ••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory. "
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ••••
"ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the use of an argument that sounds convincing to others because they are ignorant of the weaknesses of the argument and of the facts that stand against it."
-Sister Miriam Joseph PhD , "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric" (1937) •••
'In the appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) one relies on the lack of knowledge on the part of the hearers to hinder them from seeing through the speciousness of one's arguments. Statistics are thus often used and abused by orators, knowing that the audience is not acquainted with the facts or with the proper interpretation of the figures. Speaking to an uneducated mass meeting, the speaker will frequently sway his audience with the fire of his enthusiasm and the grandiloquence of his language, convinced that the play of his words will do more than any amount of cogent reasoning.'
-Celestine N. Bittle, The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic •••
"What we are seeing is that the so-called truths of symbolic logic-the “laws of logic”-aren’t true at all. They’re statement-forms, not statements, and therefore aren’t true or false. And it isn’t easy to find interpretations of those statement-forms that validate them. In other words, it isn’t easy to figure out what sorts of constants must replace the variables occurring in these “laws” if true sentences are to result. This suggests that modern symbolic logic (a.k.a. mathematical logic, a.k.a. formal logic) isn’t logic at all. It’s actually a small and rather unimportant branch of a discipline known as “model theory.” In Section 3.4, we’ll see why, given this fact, it follows that formal logic has little to do with the way in which any actual or even possible being reasons." - "Elementary Logic: Third Edition" by J.-M. Kuczynski, Kindle Loc 686 ••••
Professor Peter Kreeft noted in his book "Socratic Logic" that he had never heard anyone but a professional philosopher use symbolic/ mathematical logic Logic in a discussion or debate. •••
"How Long Has This Stuff Been Around? If this is the first time you have heard about fallacies, you may think that a structured defense against deception is a new idea. However, the Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote about some of the most common fallacies over 2300 years ago in his Sophistical Refutations. One would think that in all the time since then, these ideas would have totally spread through the culture of the educated world. One would expect that manipulation by advertisers, politicians, news pundits, and other unsavory characters would be impossible. One would assume that this type of critical think thinking would be a regular part of scholastic instruction: public, private, or home. But no. The vast majority of people remain unaware and unarmed. Hopefully, Don't Get Fooled will improve the general level of reasoning by spreading these ideas in an easy-to-understand format. When we laugh out loud at irrational commercials, unsound campaign rhetoric, and slimy sales pitches, and these communications have to be rewritten with data and logic because they are no longer effective, we will know we have succeeded."
-'Don't Get Fooled! How to Analyze Claims for Fallacies, Biases, and Other Deceptions' Ray Givler, Kindle location 540 •••
"I agree, again, with Lord Baldwin that most electors are 'only imperfectly prepared to follow a close argument'. That being so, the politician who seeks to win an election must resort to persuasion. He 'must' because, first, he seeks to get something done -- to put a policy into effect; secondly, in order to achieve this policy, his party must be returned to power; thirdly, the victory of the party at the polls depends upon the votes of electors who are beset by hopes and fears and who have never been trained to think clearly. Consequently, rhetorical persuasion will in fact be substituted for rational argument and for reasonable consideration of the difficulties that confront any Democratic government."
-'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) page14
"An argument is a special kind of expression of inference , one that attempts to prove something on the basis of evidence."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (1985), 2nd edition •••
"The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the the evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from the evidence."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (1985), 2nd edition ••••
"Fallacious Even If Valid
So far, we have considered arguments that are fallacious precisely because they are invalid. But arguments may be fallacious for reasons other invalidity --even valid arguments may be fallacious. Thus we have the fallacy category 'fallacious even if valid.
1. Suppressed Evidence
When arguing, it is human nature to present every reason you can think of that is favorable to your own position, while omitting those that are unfavorable. Nevertheless, anyone who argues in this very human way argues fallaciously. Let's call this the fallacy of 'suppressed evidence...
Questionable Premise
The fallacy of the 'questionable premise' is simply the fallacy of accepting premises in an argument that are both questionable and inadequately supported."
-Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition ••••
"A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has true premises. Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, and if either is missing the argument is unsound. The qualification that the premises must be true means that all premises must be true. Because a valid argument is one such that if the premises are true it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true, and because a sound argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that every sound argument, by definition, will have a true conclusions as well. A sound argument, therefore, is what is meant by a "good" deductive argument in the fullest sense of the term."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (1985), 2nd edition •••
"A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has true premises, and if either condition is missing the argument is uncogent. A cogent argument is the inductive analogue of a sound deductive argument and is what is meant by a " good" inductive argument without qualification. Because the conclusion of a cogent argument is genuinely supported by true premises, it follows that the conclusion of a cogent argument is probably true."
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic (1985), 2nd edition
"To attack the laws of logic you have to assume your attack on logic is logically formulated"
Yeah, and the first victim of my attack on logic would be my logically formulated attack on logic.
Piesho Nais•••
Well, I guess it's a good thing that Marty didn't come within a hundred miles of honestly exposing how fondue the science of Logic to understand real world deception. This video might as well have been presented by The Ministry of Truth.
Bitch please is my favourite go to logical conclusion. Comes from 13 years of youtube.
"The earth is flat? Bitch please!"
"God exists? Bitch please."
"Jordan knows what he's talking about when it comes to spirit science? Bitch PLEASE!"
"[B]itch please..."
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad!" Spock
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
@@williamspringer9447 You must of missed that episode of Star Trek.
I debated IP on the God of the Gaps Fallacy. On one of his videos (check it out). On the second round of the debate I asked him to address my rebuttals but he didn't. Since he seems to address rebuttals but not mine I assumed he couldn't.
Well obviously he doesn't have to reply. And they can't be irrelevant because he asked me those questions because they are relevant to him! I noticed that when he's addressing other You Tubers he answers their questions and rebuttals as well as my previous rebuttals (sorry I didn't mention that in my last text). And I asked him why he didn't respond to my rebuttals and he never did! So I feel justified in thinking that he couldn't! Did you even check out the debate?
He must be. Because he always comes back with more rebuttals.
IP is playing the presuppositionalist game of insisting that there must be a god to provide a grounding for logic. Sye ten Bruggencate does the same thing when he keeps asking how people know what they know, insisting that any doubt makes everything we claim to know blow up, while he is saved (in more ways than one) by asserting his god.
@TDV He's wrong when he says that there has to be a god to act as a grounding for logic.
Did he correctly identify the day of the week on which he was filming?
4:30 wow so many leaps in logic in that entire arguement
Catalina Gearbox •••
Yeah, Mary can do that Straw man argument like no other . He eviscerated the science of Logic with this video like a true pro
In premise 3, it sounds like he’s remarking on the crisis that threatened to derail mathematics early last century. That’s where we got Godel’s Theorem and Turing’s Halting Problem. It’s also why we have multiple inconsistent versions of mathematical theories. Each theory is internally consistent and valid. But different theories pick and choose between certain axioms that don’t lead to contradictions whether you assume them to be true or false.
So things like the axiom of choice may be true in one system and false in another. Yet both systems are mathematically consistent. And Godel tells us they’re also incomplete because there are true statements in mathematical systems that can’t be proven true within those systems.
This kind of thing blew mathematical minds back in the day. And it came about by translating a statement like “this statement is false” into a system of arithmetic.
Of course that was around a century age and mathematicians have dealt with it and moved on. We know all about limits on mathematics, logic, and computation. What skeptics are using it _now_ to disprove logic?
Maybe I should have continued watching before commenting.
Jamal Wills •••
The science of propositional logic presents obvious dangers if it is widely understood by the masses . That is why people like Marty plainly eviscerate the science of Logic before they present it to their. audience . For instance, Aristotle asserted that logical arguments must be well supported by reliable evidence, yet there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. eeceived deceived into war there . Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, yet there is no reliable evidence that it ever happened.
I really think he didn't spoke about atheist when he said skeptics in this video, but classical skeptics. Carneades.org used the liar paradox as an argument against logic here: th-cam.com/video/tcr2UuJiuu8/w-d-xo.html
Gabriel Auclair It is very obvious from his comment section that the intended accusation was against atheists.
I would be tempted to think that his commenters were wrong when they spoke of atheists in the comments.
Marty, you only got it half right. Logic is the study of reason. But when discussing "Possible Worlds" in modal logic, the only possible worlds are worlds that are non-contradictory (i.e. it's not possible for God to both exist and not exist). So it *is* about what is really possible. Why would logical consistency matter, unless it had real-world consequences? The Laws of Logic also govern Possible Worlds (what is possible).
0:36 "Explicitly rejecting logic..."
>Shows quote about reason
Are reason and logic interchangeable terms? I don't think so personally. I don't agree with Martin Luther about reason, or a lot of things, but this quote seems disingenuous.
Really good stuff. Thanks a lot.
Volker Wendt •••
Does Marty work for The Ministry of Truth? Because if he doesn't , they should definitely hire him
I never thought that I'd say this, but we need to go back to the 1800s in part of our education system. Back then, students were trained about logic, critical thinking, fallacies, etc. from a very young age. (Read about the symbolic logic techniques of the learned mathematician *Charles Lutwidge Dodgson* (+), sometime...)
Today, the absence of this teaching is painfully telling. The ignorance of critical thinking techniques have lead to a staggering amount of utter stupidity by figures in politics & the media. This would seem to be a deliberate policy by religious organisations to prevent their followers from analyzing the logical flaws in their faith & therefore being be less likely to blindly follow whatever stupidity that the leaders of these groups promote.
(+) Better known by his pen name *Lewis Carroll* ...
[ Jabberwocky ] ; )~
ninthRing ••••
The science of propositional logic informs us that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence.
There is no reliable evidence that man ever walked on the Moon.
Do you see why the science of propositional logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century? The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
@@williamspringer9447
You & I have profoundly differing standards of *_"reliable evidence"_* , if you doubt something with as massive amounts of evidential data as the *Apollo* manned moon missions...
Understand, even if you were to doubt the copious quantities of information from *NASA* & the *US* government⊕, there's sufficient documentation from other sources to accept the veracity of the moon landings. I'm an *Australian* & our *CSIRO Parkes Observatory* was an essential part of the tracking & communication system of the *Apollo 11* missions: You've undoubtedly watched the *Neil Armstrong* moon landing transmission from *_July 1969_* , which was received from *Apollo 11 / Tranquility Base* at *Parkes* & sent across the globe.
⊕ Questioning your government's honesty in political circumstances is entirely understandable & valid, however you must draw a line and accept some government provided information, or you'll end up going down the rabbit hole of unjustifiable paranoia & confusion.
Where you draw the line is something you need to think about...