Though I've already studied symbolic logic It's always a joy watching new videos of Jack. He's such a good and interesting lecturer, feels like you always end up with a clearer and deeper understanding of what you already (thought) you knew after watching his lessons. Thank you for posting this great material Jack!
Mister. Can you recommend any book for logic for novice? I really wish to cover the basic of it to go deep down. Or at least good introduction paper or clip
@@chaidle follow Peter Smith's logic study guide,it goes from basic to advanced. My recommendation for the prerequisite book would be for all x Calgary (what prerequisites you require before following the guide is also mentioned in the guide but i just gave an alternative book to the one mentioned in the prerequisite)
@Chosen one thanks for the recommendation. May I ask you if you majored in logics? Because I'm seriously after this. I solved my money problem, and looking for also kind of a career. Like... American university. (I'm Korean btw..) Do you think just reading certain books like Quine, Wittgenstein is okay to specialize in it?
In order to work along with the lectures, you'll find it useful to check out John Halpin's Logic Café: thelogiccafe.net/PLI/. This week we're working with the Introduction and with Chapter One.
Thank you for the lectures and the online study materials. Is there any chance at all of the online guide being updated at any point? It's very valuable but currently quite difficult to access with certain devices, browsers etc. Thanks again for the lessons.
Yes this is true. There is not much we actually know. That is why I am puzzled that most people do not try to learn the things we actually know before trying to tackle more elusive problems.
Philosophy is developing paradigms on how to approach problems. Logic offers an immediate workable framework for solving such problems and the development of paradigms. Paradigms are generalised problem solving approaches.
Hello! I'm 28 yo, I'm Greek and I live in Germany. I wonder if it's possible for an adult like me, who has only finished highschool (back in 2010), to start studying philosophy and psychology in the USA. I want to follow my dreams and I don't know how. 😥
You can learn philosophy for free on the internet, here are some good resources: th-cam.com/users/WirelessPhilosophy th-cam.com/video/BNYJQaZUDrI/w-d-xo.html
Symbolic Logic is the study of arbitrary rules with no real application outside of the study itself. Actual arguments from a human being can't be meaningfully analyzed through it's framework.
Michael O. Logic can and has been used to assess the reliability or internal consistency of an argument. Symbolic logic is simply a way to provide a taxonomy or perhaps a way to codify this. Examples of this are possibly as pervasive as simply finding two people having an argument with one another. One place where there is a large body of this is in athiest objection to religion based on faith; the invisible pink unicorn, Russels teapot, or Dawkins flying spaghetti monster.
Hi again - Sorry for the delay in replying. It looks like you're thinking of Aristotelean logic, rather than the more contemporary versions addressed in this course. If you chug along to later lectures, you'll see that both Sentence Logic and Predicate Logic are a bit more sophisticated in terms of being able to model real reasoning. It's true to say that there's more to reasoning than is encompassed by the deductive logic addressed in this course, but deductive logic is a pretty important component in what we all do every day in our thinking. I'm interested in what you'll have to say later on in this series of lectures, especially if you work along in the Logic Cafe as you go. Cheers - Jack
I don't believe the limitations of logic render it arbitrary. Like Benjamin said, logic measures the internal consistency of an argument. I think a more precise explanation of the role of Logic is to determine the validity of an argument (and its structure). It is the first step in creating a rational argument that can be generally accepted. The second step is whether or not it is true. In your very own example, you cited a logically consistent argument. While its true that one can come up with several examples of arbitrary arguments that seem absurd all the while being logically consistent, the exercise is less concerned with making the argument, than it is with presenting it. It's like a checkpoint you need to pass in order to reach the finish line. If your argument is logical, than you have graduated to the task of proving why the premises should be accepted as true.
Anybody could help me understand if this Symbolic Logic has anything related with the hot Machine Learning, Deep Learning? It seems to me Symbolic Logic is tooo classic so that it has become remote and no need to spend time to learn. I am new to this area. Thank you for any explanation!
How do we correct our wrong briefs, they are beliefs after all. We believe because we don't know, otherwise it wouldn't be a belief, it would be information; knowledge.
This shows a lack of understanding of epistemology. Under internalist models, to know X requires that one also believe X. Philosophically, 'belief' means only that the agent holds X to be true, regardless of why the agent holds X to be true. It does not necessarily imply lack of evidence or sound reasoning. See Justified True Belief, internalism, externalism, Gettier Problems, etc in SEP/IEP.
Hello Jack! I can't seem to find The Logic Café, as your link does not appear to lead to the relevant website. Are you aware of how to deal with this issue?
It seems like they would be, unless conclusively proven. New evidence might always come in, or new reasons (see, for evidentiary support, the history of science). Beliefs supported by the best evidence and the best reasoning are the best we can do at any given time, but are not necessarily conclusive for all time...
Also, would you agree or disagree with the notion that Political Correctness is in a way suppression of free speech that yields the same situation that you mentioned Jon Stuart Mill describes? (A situation that doesn't allow for the diffusion of one another's opinions.)
It is even more sinister. By regulating the words permitted, this will sooner or later have an impact on the thinking capabilities of people. Most people think in words... Ever tried to solve a problem that you cannot articulate verbally because you miss appropriate vocabulary? It’s terrible! And even if you could solve it without proper vocabulary, how would you communicate your solution to other people? :-)
Hi Dr. Sanders @jacksanders2611, what is the "Logic Cafe" mentioned in these videos? Was this something through RIT that was available to the students, or is it also perhaps accessible to the general public today? Thanks kindly for your help, time, and for openly providing these lectures.
Hi Cameron - See the note immediately below this one. Up until fairly recently, the Logic Cafe has been available on a public website. It seems to be gone now, and I've been trying to get in touch with the creator. No luck so far. I'll try to work out a solution, but I'm not too optimistic at the moment... - Cheers, Jack Sanders
10 27 - oops sorry Newton was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. Second. Incredibly the first - Isaac Barrow said something like 1665 , "I shouldnt be lucasian prof of math, Mr Newton should!" - remarkable even in 1665. Barrow was probably rewarded for doing this
And now that I double check, I find that the Jacksonian Professorship of Natural Philosophy wasn't established at Cambridge until 1782. It was, though, as indicated in the lecture, a position intended for what we would now called scientists, both theoretical and experimental...
Help Please! Can't get the drag and drop to work - it shows dragging the top left corner, however, it never changes to another state like correct or incorrect.
Hi Rich - I'm afraid I can't help. I don't use the online interface in my course. Instead, I've re-edited the software for the internal course software here at RIT. You might want to contact Halpin directly through the Logic Cafe website, though. - Cheers, Jack
I disagree with the idea that being an intellectual hipster is essentially the heart of philosophy... For me, "friendship with wisdom" (or love of wisdom) sounds far more essential to the meaning intended when people associate "philosophy" with something. If you are a "Doctor of Philosophy", you're a doctor (literally a teacher) who has (and presumably also teaches) a love of wisdom (which has been demonstrated via extraordinary academic efforts and achievements) in some field or another... You're a teacher of the love of the wisdom of your field. If you live your life according to some "philosophy", and say (for example), "This is my philosophy," you're saying, "This is the knowledge that informs my best choices," or, in other words, "These ideas are my favorite foundations for decision-making," or, loosely, "This is the wisdom I love." As a final example, this is a "philosophical" conversation because it demonstrates how much we care about wisdom. Wherever "philosophy" is used, I think it's easy to imagine how its use corresponds to some affection for wisdom, in one sense or another. Besides, in my experience (and probably in Jack's as well), "philosophical" conversations frequently involve ideas that at least one participating philosopher doesn't believe to be reasonably uncertain at all (or at least no more uncertain than anything else). Sometimes philosophers will just have a quick philosophical chat about something obviously true to both of them, such as the subjectivity of human experience. If you ask someone, "How often do you need to shower?" and they reply, "My philosophy is that if I feel clean, I don't need to try to make myself cleaner," no uncertainty is being expressed - but an appreciation of self-awareness, and thus (yet again) a love of wisdom, is being expressed.
@@jacksanders2611 Well, to sum up a long series of comments that I don't want to transcribe, you said, "These are the philosophical questions: the ones that don't yet have clear-cut answers." To me, that makes a philosopher sound like an intellectual hipster who only cares about the truth if it's new and disputed. I don't think the concern with the unclear is the real essence of philosophy for all philosophers. I should probably also say thanks, by the way; you're doing a lovely service to upload all these free videos about philosophy and logic for everyone to contemplate. You're a hero, even if I had to voice (er, text) my disagreement with that one little thing.
I haven't arranged them in playlists, but if you go to my channel and click on "videos", the videos from each of the five courses are pretty much collected together...
Watching his lectures all the way from Saudi 🇸🇦 . These lectures are beyond great. Your students are very lucky
Wanted to stop this video halfway through to thank you for doing an amazing job! Your students are really lucky!
Thanks Michael...
Informative lecture
Though I've already studied symbolic logic It's always a joy watching new videos of Jack. He's such a good and interesting lecturer, feels like you always end up with a clearer and deeper understanding of what you already (thought) you knew after watching his lessons. Thank you for posting this great material Jack!
Thanks Johan...
Mister. Can you recommend any book for logic for novice? I really wish to cover the basic of it to go deep down. Or at least good introduction paper or clip
@@chaidle follow Peter Smith's logic study guide,it goes from basic to advanced. My recommendation for the prerequisite book would be for all x Calgary (what prerequisites you require before following the guide is also mentioned in the guide but i just gave an alternative book to the one mentioned in the prerequisite)
@Chosen one thanks for the recommendation. May I ask you if you majored in logics? Because I'm seriously after this. I solved my money problem, and looking for also kind of a career. Like... American university. (I'm Korean btw..)
Do you think just reading certain books like Quine, Wittgenstein is okay to specialize in it?
In order to work along with the lectures, you'll find it useful to check out John Halpin's Logic Café: thelogiccafe.net/PLI/. This week we're working with the Introduction and with Chapter One.
Thank you for the lectures and the online study materials. Is there any chance at all of the online guide being updated at any point? It's very valuable but currently quite difficult to access with certain devices, browsers etc. Thanks again for the lessons.
@@galaxybreak285 i just want to COMPLIMENT you for your insight that happiness and sadness COMPLEMENT one another.
Yes this is true. There is not much we actually know. That is why I am puzzled that most people do not try to learn the things we actually know before trying to tackle more elusive problems.
Wonderful lecture. Thank you for posting!
Philosophy is developing paradigms on how to approach problems. Logic offers an immediate workable framework for solving such problems and the development of paradigms. Paradigms are generalised problem solving approaches.
Thank you for posting these! Im starting my Undergraduate Philosophy studies this fall and these videos have been a great way to study for it
logic studies the truth.
Truth is what corresponds with reality.
Or the real.
Thank you for sharing your lecturing with us!!
Hi Alessandro - Glad to share! - Jack
Hello!
I'm 28 yo, I'm Greek and I live in Germany. I wonder if it's possible for an adult like me, who has only finished highschool (back in 2010), to start studying philosophy and psychology in the USA.
I want to follow my dreams and I don't know how. 😥
Hi Mary - It certainly should be possible; I'm sure any university in the US would take your application very seriously. - Cheers, Jack
You can learn philosophy for free on the internet, here are some good resources:
th-cam.com/users/WirelessPhilosophy
th-cam.com/video/BNYJQaZUDrI/w-d-xo.html
Hi, is there anything I can help you with?
These videoes are amazing! Watching them during the cold norwegian winter. :D
There is a heatwave going on this summer.
Im rewatching!
Can't say how much these videos relieved my stuck questions about logic and i said wow what was wrong with my line of reasoning 😭
As I am hearing this my eyes are opening to wider perspective. Thank you sir
Starting my masters philosophy conversion course in September so started this series. Amazing work thank you
Thank you
Thank you for uploading these videos it really helps those of us we haven’t taken this class.
you would have been an awesome teacher, i love that you have your lectures up here on youtube. thank you!
Thanks!
excellent lecture
0=1, is sufficient for 2 + 2 = 4,
and 2 + 2 = 4 is necessary for 0 = 1.
The statement 0=1 implies 2+2=4 must be true.
I wish I'd read more and earlier. So glad I watched this video.
I loved symbolic logic class when I took it as an undergrad for my computer science degree and mathematics minor
Symbolic Logic is the study of arbitrary rules with no real application outside of the study itself. Actual arguments from a human being can't be meaningfully analyzed through it's framework.
Can you develop that and give us an example please?
Hi Michael - Have you an example? - Cheers, Jack
Michael O. Logic can and has been used to assess the reliability or internal consistency of an argument. Symbolic logic is simply a way to provide a taxonomy or perhaps a way to codify this. Examples of this are possibly as pervasive as simply finding two people having an argument with one another. One place where there is a large body of this is in athiest objection to religion based on faith; the invisible pink unicorn, Russels teapot, or Dawkins flying spaghetti monster.
Hi again - Sorry for the delay in replying. It looks like you're thinking of Aristotelean logic, rather than the more contemporary versions addressed in this course. If you chug along to later lectures, you'll see that both Sentence Logic and Predicate Logic are a bit more sophisticated in terms of being able to model real reasoning. It's true to say that there's more to reasoning than is encompassed by the deductive logic addressed in this course, but deductive logic is a pretty important component in what we all do every day in our thinking. I'm interested in what you'll have to say later on in this series of lectures, especially if you work along in the Logic Cafe as you go. Cheers - Jack
I don't believe the limitations of logic render it arbitrary. Like Benjamin said, logic measures the internal consistency of an argument. I think a more precise explanation of the role of Logic is to determine the validity of an argument (and its structure). It is the first step in creating a rational argument that can be generally accepted. The second step is whether or not it is true. In your very own example, you cited a logically consistent argument. While its true that one can come up with several examples of arbitrary arguments that seem absurd all the while being logically consistent, the exercise is less concerned with making the argument, than it is with presenting it. It's like a checkpoint you need to pass in order to reach the finish line. If your argument is logical, than you have graduated to the task of proving why the premises should be accepted as true.
Logic is the connectives of the language..
well done
Anybody could help me understand if this Symbolic Logic has anything related with the hot Machine Learning, Deep Learning? It seems to me Symbolic Logic is tooo classic so that it has become remote and no need to spend time to learn. I am new to this area. Thank you for any explanation!
It also seems to me that for 99% people in AI, no need to read Turing's original papers. Am I right?
How do we correct our wrong briefs, they are beliefs after all. We believe because we don't know, otherwise it wouldn't be a belief, it would be information; knowledge.
This shows a lack of understanding of epistemology. Under internalist models, to know X requires that one also believe X. Philosophically, 'belief' means only that the agent holds X to be true, regardless of why the agent holds X to be true. It does not necessarily imply lack of evidence or sound reasoning. See Justified True Belief, internalism, externalism, Gettier Problems, etc in SEP/IEP.
Start 14:29 CET
Logic is the relationship between support and conclude sentence
Thank you sir u r great
Computer science? Mathematical logic? First order logic? Anyone?
yes
THANKS
Hello Jack! I can't seem to find The Logic Café, as your link does not appear to lead to the relevant website. Are you aware of how to deal with this issue?
Greetings - Thanks for the heads up; I'll check it out... - Cheers, Jack
i love this but wouldn't the idea of logic be a social understanding/description of abstraction? glad to find this lecture
Hi Joshua - Could be; but if so, what would be the consequences of that? - Cheers, Jack
@@jacksanders2611 The consequence would be where we are right now.
Thank you!
If beliefs are supported by evidence and good reasoning, they are not beliefs anymore, are they?
It seems like they would be, unless conclusively proven. New evidence might always come in, or new reasons (see, for evidentiary support, the history of science). Beliefs supported by the best evidence and the best reasoning are the best we can do at any given time, but are not necessarily conclusive for all time...
Thank you so much
was not expecting a reference to ween to drop halfway through..
I think philosophy is examining what we know to be true, maybe. 🤷🏾♀️ love logic though
Ween and logic. Ace combo.
Also, would you agree or disagree with the notion that Political Correctness is in a way suppression of free speech that yields the same situation that you mentioned Jon Stuart Mill describes? (A situation that doesn't allow for the diffusion of one another's opinions.)
That can, indeed, happen...
It is even more sinister. By regulating the words permitted, this will sooner or later have an impact on the thinking capabilities of people. Most people think in words... Ever tried to solve a problem that you cannot articulate verbally because you miss appropriate vocabulary? It’s terrible! And even if you could solve it without proper vocabulary, how would you communicate your solution to other people? :-)
That's the idea of linguistic determinism best known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; an example of its execution is 1984's Newspeak. @@rexremedy1733
7:30 Perhaps a PhD as the highest form of education is a homage to the origins of university?
Hi Dr. Sanders @jacksanders2611, what is the "Logic Cafe" mentioned in these videos? Was this something through RIT that was available to the students, or is it also perhaps accessible to the general public today? Thanks kindly for your help, time, and for openly providing these lectures.
Hi Cameron - See the note immediately below this one. Up until fairly recently, the Logic Cafe has been available on a public website. It seems to be gone now, and I've been trying to get in touch with the creator. No luck so far. I'll try to work out a solution, but I'm not too optimistic at the moment... - Cheers, Jack Sanders
@@jacksanders2611 Thanks kindly for your reply! I'll make due for now. Onto lecture 2!
10 27 - oops sorry Newton was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. Second. Incredibly the first - Isaac Barrow said something like 1665 , "I shouldnt be lucasian prof of math, Mr Newton should!" - remarkable even in 1665. Barrow was probably rewarded for doing this
Right! Thanks! - Cheers, Jack
And now that I double check, I find that the Jacksonian Professorship of Natural Philosophy wasn't established at Cambridge until 1782. It was, though, as indicated in the lecture, a position intended for what we would now called scientists, both theoretical and experimental...
Does anyone know what textbook they are using or how to access their resources?
Hi Chris - See my reference to the Logic Cafe website, below... - Jack
Help Please! Can't get the drag and drop to work - it shows dragging the top left corner, however, it never changes to another state like correct or incorrect.
Hi Rich - I'm afraid I can't help. I don't use the online interface in my course. Instead, I've re-edited the software for the internal course software here at RIT. You might want to contact Halpin directly through the Logic Cafe website, though. - Cheers, Jack
Tanks, I've figure it out.
and tanks for making this TH-cam series.
Can someone please explain how the argument is impossible
Hi Guybrush - Which argument? - Cheers, Jack
danke schön Jack :)
bitte!! - Jack
I didn't knew that david hasselhoff is a logician too..........
who raised their hands at 1:5:23? 🙋
Lol not me, I initially did 'Suppose (2), Then (5), So (3)'.
I disagree with the idea that being an intellectual hipster is essentially the heart of philosophy... For me, "friendship with wisdom" (or love of wisdom) sounds far more essential to the meaning intended when people associate "philosophy" with something.
If you are a "Doctor of Philosophy", you're a doctor (literally a teacher) who has (and presumably also teaches) a love of wisdom (which has been demonstrated via extraordinary academic efforts and achievements) in some field or another... You're a teacher of the love of the wisdom of your field.
If you live your life according to some "philosophy", and say (for example), "This is my philosophy," you're saying, "This is the knowledge that informs my best choices," or, in other words, "These ideas are my favorite foundations for decision-making," or, loosely, "This is the wisdom I love."
As a final example, this is a "philosophical" conversation because it demonstrates how much we care about wisdom.
Wherever "philosophy" is used, I think it's easy to imagine how its use corresponds to some affection for wisdom, in one sense or another.
Besides, in my experience (and probably in Jack's as well), "philosophical" conversations frequently involve ideas that at least one participating philosopher doesn't believe to be reasonably uncertain at all (or at least no more uncertain than anything else). Sometimes philosophers will just have a quick philosophical chat about something obviously true to both of them, such as the subjectivity of human experience. If you ask someone, "How often do you need to shower?" and they reply, "My philosophy is that if I feel clean, I don't need to try to make myself cleaner," no uncertainty is being expressed - but an appreciation of self-awareness, and thus (yet again) a love of wisdom, is being expressed.
Hi Zendachi - Intellectual hipster? - Jack
@@jacksanders2611 Well, to sum up a long series of comments that I don't want to transcribe, you said, "These are the philosophical questions: the ones that don't yet have clear-cut answers." To me, that makes a philosopher sound like an intellectual hipster who only cares about the truth if it's new and disputed. I don't think the concern with the unclear is the real essence of philosophy for all philosophers.
I should probably also say thanks, by the way; you're doing a lovely service to upload all these free videos about philosophy and logic for everyone to contemplate. You're a hero, even if I had to voice (er, text) my disagreement with that one little thing.
can you make playlist of individual courses?
I haven't arranged them in playlists, but if you go to my channel and click on "videos", the videos from each of the five courses are pretty much collected together...
Jack Sanders does logic course is complete?
Yes. Fifteen lectures. You'll probably want to work along with the Logic Cafe (see link, above) if you get serious about the course...
Maqbool not off the top of my head...
Maybe Spinoza's "Ethics"...
Why the professor does not see the logic in grooming?
Because that is how he wants to look. Or he does not care.