I liked this before seeing how this relates to the video. I went down to like it again, forgetting I had already done so and actually unliked the comment by accident! I wish I could like it twice!
0:04 Data, Observation, Conclusion 0:54 What is an Argument? Premises and Conclusion 1:50 Valid Argument 2:14 Invalid Argument 2:40 True Premises, Invalid Argument 3:04 False Premises, Valid Argument 3:30 Deductive and Inductive Arguments 4:32 “You can’t make any New mistakes” Validity of a deductive argument is determined by form more than content of argument. 7:33 Inductive Argument (likely, plausible, but not guaranteed or certain)
@@williamspringer9447 putting terms to these things and conceptualizing them consciously is helpful to making sure that you understand the world right and are actually making logical as opposed to just impulsive or misguided decisions
s n a c c••• I wasn't clear enough. Here's some information about the science of Logic that was suppressed in this lecture..••• 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 hard to lie to 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 ••••••••••
Your insight is blessed with clarity in a concise, simplistic manner, thank you. In order to hone one's analytical perception a course on logic carries significant weight. I will recommend this course to my son who just started university.
Μαρία Καστανά Maria Kastana•••• This guy taught you nothing about reasoning that you didn't already know and do naturally . When was the last time that you believed an invalid deductive argument?
Notes: scientists gathering data through observation, experiments, archival studies; draw conclusions from data, showing certain theories to be right, other wrong; understand science then understand when it is legitimate and when illegitimate to draw a conclusions from what we already know; understand between good and bad arguments; logic, the study of argumentation; first, terms: arguments two parts, premises and conclusion; the premises are what we presuppose, conclusion what we conclude from premises; valid and invalid arguments; valid=conclusion really follows from the premises; drawing conclusions; whether an argument is valid or not has nothing to do with whether the premises and conclusion are true; can have false premises but still have a valid arguments; more terms: deductive and inductive arguments; deductive=truth of premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; deductive arguments: never introduce falsehoods in a way, whether a deductive argument is valid or not you can just look at the form of the arguments and disregard the content/matter of the argument; science doesn't work solely deductively; inductive argument=the truth of the premises give good reason to believe the truth of the conclusion but does not absolutely guarantee its truth; example: none of the swans I have seen are black, ergo, there are no swans in the world that are black, an only plausible argument; the truth of the premises makes the conclusion likely but does not guarantee it; we have limited data and we want to draw a general conclusion from said data, but the conclusion drawn inductively will only be likely and will not absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion; induction is more problematic than deduction
The best and most understandable and brief explanation of Logic I've heard and learnt from. I couldn't understand what my philosophy teacher was teaching us but thankfully i found this video and hopefully i can score marks in the philosophy exam scheduled next week TwT
Can anyone solve this?? We state that: Premise 1: No premise is true. Premise 2: Premise 2 is a premise. Conclusion: Premise 2 is not true. Is the conclusion true? ;)
Thank you very much, Victor. I'm looking for a way to teach my sons logic and reason without using strict metelanguage. Your approach is fantastic for this. Much appreciated. Cheers.
DANIEL SHALAM •••• This guy didn't teach you anything about reasoning that you didn't already know and do naturally. It's the stuff that he suppressed about the science of Logic that's important .
Guys, you must understand the distinction between a valid argument and the true conclusion Validity does not guarantee trueness Validity is about the argument form whereas trueness is about the content of the premises
Einstein's theory of relativity was purely deductive and was able to predict physical phenomena before they were ever observed (using deductive inference from the physical premise that the speed of light was constant). Same goes for the discovery of the Higg's boson. So suggesting science is in essence inductive can be misleading.
Deductive reasoning in reality.....is a way to form tautologies. They do not produce any new knowledge , they only state the obvious. There is zero risk thus the return is low. In science all our theories make claims which we utilize them as predictions. This means that our risk is high (both theories are open to future falsification) but the return is also high (we have theories that produce useful descriptions, accurate predictions and technical applications). Conclusions by Deduction can never be used to form law like generalizations. They only address the specific case they describe.
@Nicholas Gaspar ••••••••• 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 ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• The science of logic itself is the creation of deduction, and I don't believe that many people would describe it as a tautology .
Jason •••• In order for you to believe an argument logically , it should be (1) inferred from premises that you've verified with solid evidence to be true ; (2) properly considered all known relevant evidence ; and (3) come to a conclusion that you can verify follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the premises . •••• Do you believe I. Einstein's theory of relativity logically ? Or do you believe it because authority figures told you that it was true ?
'None of the medieval texts we have studied argues against the existence of God. The conclusion is nobody in the Middle Ages argued against the existence of God.' I am unsure whether this conclusion is valid as what is written in texts is not always the same as what is said by people. In this case, although no text argues against the existence of God, there might have been lots of people who argued against the existence of God. Their ideas might not have been recorded in texts. Please correct me if I am mistaken here. Best wishes, Neil
how example at 6:13 is deductive argument when you already said that deductive argument guarantees truth of conclusion based on truth of the premises . when both premises and conclusion is false in 6:13 example ,how is it an example of deductive argument ?
Why do you suggest he uses 'therefore' instead of 'so'? In the English language, one can use 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'hence'. They all mean the same thing. They are ALL formal adverbs.
inductive Argument, Deductive Arguments are confusiong the whole process because this two want to change the premises of the Argument... Don't get it...
Pre: previous to; before Suppose: assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge I do not usually "pre-suppose" my premises. At worst, I suppose or assert my premises.
Right at the start he says that "they [scientists] want to use the data to show that certain theories are right and other theories are wrong". Since he is talking about scientists, I am asuming he is referring to scientific theories, not the everyday use of the word. From what I know, scientific theories (that have reached this status by thorough scientific scrutiny) are rarely proven wrong. Doesn't he mean "hypotheses" instead of "theories"?
2:38 invalid argument (the validity of the argument is independent on the truth of the premises 3:15 5:37 Validity test by just looking at the algebraic form of deductive arguments 8:19 inductive argument
Gloria Addah••••• Here's some stuff about the science of Logic that was conspicuously absent from this video. •••• "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 ("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" •••••••••• "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 ••••••••• "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 •••••••••• '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 •••••••••• '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 ••••••••••
Victor Gijsbers is a great lecturer. Victor Gijsbers teaches at Leiden University. So, Leiden University only has great lecturers. Valid or invalid argument?
That's an invalid argument.However, you can make it a valid argument by interchanging the premise.Start by Leiden University lecturers and then go to Victor Gijsbers.
isn't the argument invalid because the claim that he is a great lecturer is subjective? don't the claims have to all be objective facts to be deducted down to a valid argument? I could be wrong as I am new to logic and philosophy.
@@soreloser6719 Argument validity is not defined by the truthfulness of the statements that form the premise and conclusion of an argument but whether the conclusion follows the premise, should the premise be true.
You meant to say that "in a valid deductive argument" if the premises are both true, then the conclusion must be true. You could have an invalid deductive argument such as: Premise 1: All kings had power over their people. Premise 2: James was a king. Conclusion: James had power over all his people. Both premises are true, but the conclusion could be false, or true. Yes James had power over his people, but we just dont know if he had power over ALL his people. This is an invalid deductive argument where both premises are true, but the conclusion can be false.
Why would he use the premise no Dutchman is humble to explain valid deductive form? Seems more like an inductive premise. He even says that it might be false right after explaining.
He's using a hypothetical definition that Dutchmen are not humble to show that the form of the argument is valid. Validity has nothing to do with falsity.
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary ••••••••••
"Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.' -Aristotle •••••••••• 'Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.' -Plato ••••••••••
"No medieval king had absolute power of his subjects" "Victor Gijsbers was a medieval king" - So, Victor Gijsbers did not have absolute power over his subjects. We call this a valid argument, but wouldn't it be better to just call it a valid conclusion, and only call the argument valid, if the premises are true? It just sounds better in my head. A distinction between a valid conclusion (based on the corresponding false premises), and a valid argument (based on the corresponding true premises).
I like this Dutchman. He's humble
I liked this before seeing how this relates to the video. I went down to like it again, forgetting I had already done so and actually unliked the comment by accident! I wish I could like it twice!
So do I
Your premises appear to be both valid and sound but ... XD
The conclusion of your comment is: you like humble people. 😂 am i right?
@@Ouzyman hee hee :D
0:04 Data, Observation, Conclusion
0:54 What is an Argument?
Premises and Conclusion
1:50 Valid Argument
2:14 Invalid Argument
2:40 True Premises, Invalid Argument
3:04 False Premises, Valid Argument
3:30 Deductive and Inductive Arguments
4:32 “You can’t make any New mistakes”
Validity of a deductive argument is determined by form more than content of argument.
7:33 Inductive Argument (likely, plausible, but not guaranteed or certain)
Why, thank you.
What a god
Where does he mention that logical arguments just be well supported by reliable evidence?
Thanks
Meet you in heaven
This is the only video that has actually helped me understand this!!
He didn't tell you anything in this video that you didn't already know naturally .
@@williamspringer9447 You just hatin lol
@@williamspringer9447 putting terms to these things and conceptualizing them consciously is helpful to making sure that you understand the world right and are actually making logical as opposed to just impulsive or misguided decisions
s n a c c•••
I wasn't clear enough.
Here's some information about the science of Logic that was suppressed in this lecture..•••
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 hard to lie to 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 ••••••••••
How can you not adduce this intuitively
Your insight is blessed with clarity in a concise, simplistic manner, thank you. In order to hone one's analytical perception a course on logic carries significant weight. I will recommend this course to my son who just started university.
I am not a student I am invested ... I will keep coming to hear more from this lecturer for sure.
These series of videos are literally THE BEST!
Μαρία Καστανά Maria Kastana••••
This guy taught you nothing about reasoning that you didn't already know and do naturally . When was the last time that you believed an invalid deductive argument?
@@williamspringer9447 truth bomb dropped 😂
@@williamspringer9447 I naturally know that fish can swim so why is it always mentioned in the biology books? What a waste of space, right?
Great lecture!
So simple and easy to understand.
9 out of 10 Americans believe that man walked on the Moon. What logical errors have Moon landing believers commuted ?
@@williamspringer9447 enlighten me dumbass?.
Victor is a superb teacher ... his lectures are clear, informative, insightful, efficient, and highly enjoyable!
Notes: scientists gathering data through observation, experiments, archival studies; draw conclusions from data, showing certain theories to be right, other wrong; understand science then understand when it is legitimate and when illegitimate to draw a conclusions from what we already know; understand between good and bad arguments; logic, the study of argumentation; first, terms: arguments two parts, premises and conclusion; the premises are what we presuppose, conclusion what we conclude from premises; valid and invalid arguments; valid=conclusion really follows from the premises; drawing conclusions; whether an argument is valid or not has nothing to do with whether the premises and conclusion are true; can have false premises but still have a valid arguments; more terms: deductive and inductive arguments; deductive=truth of premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; deductive arguments: never introduce falsehoods in a way, whether a deductive argument is valid or not you can just look at the form of the arguments and disregard the content/matter of the argument; science doesn't work solely deductively; inductive argument=the truth of the premises give good reason to believe the truth of the conclusion but does not absolutely guarantee its truth; example: none of the swans I have seen are black, ergo, there are no swans in the world that are black, an only plausible argument; the truth of the premises makes the conclusion likely but does not guarantee it; we have limited data and we want to draw a general conclusion from said data, but the conclusion drawn inductively will only be likely and will not absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion; induction is more problematic than deduction
"Problem of induction"
The best and most understandable and brief explanation of Logic I've heard and learnt from. I couldn't understand what my philosophy teacher was teaching us but thankfully i found this video and hopefully i can score marks in the philosophy exam scheduled next week TwT
i was hoping this was the same guy that dropped the legendary Kant lecture i absolutely love this dude!!!
Great series, gonna watch all the way through.
This lecturer just finished explaining the whole chapter in just 8:56 minutes
Where as our lecturer takes more than one hour lol
Computer coding languages operate the same way with If, then statements.
A clear explanation. Can someone recommend any book or scholarly article on this work. I need to use it for my dissertation. Thanks in advance.
Can anyone solve this??
We state that:
Premise 1: No premise is true.
Premise 2: Premise 2 is a premise.
Conclusion: Premise 2 is not true.
Is the conclusion true? ;)
Thank you very much, Victor.
I'm looking for a way to teach my sons logic and reason without using strict metelanguage. Your approach is fantastic for this.
Much appreciated. Cheers.
jon bailey •••••
Victor leaves out some pretty important stuff in this video. He made the whole thing without once using the word "evidence".
Thank you this was very helpful in studying for my test.
which subject is this
could you please kindly tell me ??
@@friedrichnietzsche2982 logic - branch of philosophy
Amazing. thank you ! gonna watch all of your playlist.
DANIEL SHALAM ••••
This guy didn't teach you anything about reasoning that you didn't already know and do naturally. It's the stuff that he suppressed about the science of Logic that's important .
HOLY CRAP this was so simple to understand. you explained it better than my professor did in THREE lectures. THANK YOU
He left some pretty important stuff out .
What's that???@@williamspringer9447
All Dutchman are crystal clear when explaining things.
Victor Geijsbers is a Dutchman.
So, Victor Geijsberg is crystal clear when explaining things.
Thank you for teaching us! I really appreciate the benefits of these platforms where you can study / learn from the comfort of your home! Bless you🙏
That was really good. I'm going to learn logic from this channel. You are cool
Nice lecture. I think I get another point to explain to those think that math and physics are similar.
寂筑羽 ••••
He forgot to explain how to determine if a deductive argument is sound or an inductive argument cogent .Why do you suppose he did that?
This video could help me learn more about Logic and Critical thinking. : )
Guys, you must understand the distinction between a valid argument and the true conclusion
Validity does not guarantee trueness
Validity is about the argument form whereas trueness is about the content of the premises
Einstein's theory of relativity was purely deductive and was able to predict physical phenomena before they were ever observed (using deductive inference from the physical premise that the speed of light was constant). Same goes for the discovery of the Higg's boson. So suggesting science is in essence inductive can be misleading.
Deductive reasoning in reality.....is a way to form tautologies. They do not produce any new knowledge , they only state the obvious. There is zero risk thus the return is low.
In science all our theories make claims which we utilize them as predictions.
This means that our risk is high (both theories are open to future falsification) but the return is also high (we have theories that produce useful descriptions, accurate predictions and technical applications).
Conclusions by Deduction can never be used to form law like generalizations. They only address the specific case they describe.
he didnt say it was in essence inductive tho, he said it was largely not
@Nicholas Gaspar •••••••••
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
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
The science of logic itself is the creation of deduction, and I don't believe that many people would describe it as a tautology .
Jason ••••
In order for you to believe an argument logically , it should be (1) inferred from premises that you've verified with solid evidence to be true ; (2) properly considered all known relevant evidence ; and (3) come to a conclusion that you can verify follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the premises . ••••
Do you believe I. Einstein's theory of
relativity logically ? Or do you believe it because authority figures told you that it was true ?
wow, very informative. A conclusion is what we conclude. I leaned so much.
the video discussed the topic in the title? Mind blown… 🤯🤨
Really enjoying your style of teaching.
'None of the medieval texts we have studied argues against the existence of God. The conclusion is nobody in the Middle Ages argued against the existence of God.' I am unsure whether this conclusion is valid as what is written in texts is not always the same as what is said by people. In this case, although no text argues against the existence of God, there might have been lots of people who argued against the existence of God. Their ideas might not have been recorded in texts. Please correct me if I am mistaken here. Best wishes, Neil
how example at 6:13 is deductive argument when you already said that deductive argument guarantees truth of conclusion based on truth of the premises . when both premises and conclusion is false in 6:13 example ,how is it an example of deductive argument ?
Logic is no longer taught in schools today.
Great content!
I'm currently studying in in university
I have an exam on this topic in a few hours thank you so much 🙏😊
Great insight Inductive Vs Deductive Argument
can I follow these lectures if we have the book- ''introduction to logic'' by Irving M. Copi in our syllabus????
th-cam.com/video/hfD42CVsePI/w-d-xo.html
This is very well explained and to the point. Thanks for sharing!
What an amazing video, and amazing teacher!
Could you recommend any textbooks?....thank you
Does PHR-103 have mathematical statistics in this course?
Does anyone know this person social media app i have this module or subject in school and would really appreciate a conversation with them
But what if you are a medieval king in an alternate universe ?
excellent playlist, thanks very much! time to get educated
I suggest you use : therefore , instead of, so. Thanks
Abel Philosophy ••••
I'd like to hear him use the word evidence at least one time ,instead of assumption .
Why do you suggest he uses 'therefore' instead of 'so'? In the English language, one can use 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'hence'. They all mean the same thing. They are ALL formal adverbs.
what is this series? just random lectures or does it adhere to a theme or something
Thank you. But what is inductive reasoning ?
Doesn't logic eat itself with confidence eventually... ?
you are my medieval king
Finally, Professor of Logic
inductive Argument, Deductive Arguments are confusiong the whole process because this two want to change the premises of the Argument... Don't get it...
One question- who is william springer ? He works hard
Pre: previous to; before
Suppose: assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge
I do not usually "pre-suppose" my premises. At worst, I suppose or assert my premises.
Right at the start he says that "they [scientists] want to use the data to show that certain theories are right and other theories are wrong". Since he is talking about scientists, I am asuming he is referring to scientific theories, not the everyday use of the word.
From what I know, scientific theories (that have reached this status by thorough scientific scrutiny) are rarely proven wrong. Doesn't he mean "hypotheses" instead of "theories"?
2:38 invalid argument (the validity of the argument is independent on the truth of the premises 3:15
5:37 Validity test by just looking at the algebraic form of deductive arguments
8:19 inductive argument
but what if there were some Medieval Kings with absolute power that we didn't know about... now it becomes an Invalid, Inductive argument right?
No, it's still valid, but it got false premises led to false conclusion
Remember, argument validity is just about the form, not the content
check on your example of dutchman,, it is valid but you are saying it is not VALID , check and clarify
whats the difference between deductive and ddeeeeductive ?
Can you explain logic as right reasoning?
Please I need answers to this question that says, discuss truth as in logic
Gloria Addah•••••
Here's some stuff about the science of Logic that was conspicuously absent from this video. ••••
"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
("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" ••••••••••
"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 •••••••••
"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 ••••••••••
'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 ••••••••••
'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 ••••••••••
Victor Gijsbers is a great lecturer.
Victor Gijsbers teaches at Leiden University.
So, Leiden University only has great lecturers.
Valid or invalid argument?
That's an invalid argument.However, you can make it a valid argument by interchanging the premise.Start by Leiden University lecturers and then go to Victor Gijsbers.
Might be a valid inductive argument, although the number of observations is low. ;-)
Remove the word "only" then it becomes a valid argument. The other way is not guaranteed.
isn't the argument invalid because the claim that he is a great lecturer is subjective? don't the claims have to all be objective facts to be deducted down to a valid argument? I could be wrong as I am new to logic and philosophy.
@@soreloser6719 Argument validity is not defined by the truthfulness of the statements that form the premise and conclusion of an argument but whether the conclusion follows the premise, should the premise be true.
Thank you for this lecture.
You meant to say that "in a valid deductive argument" if the premises are both true, then the conclusion must be true. You could have an invalid deductive argument such as:
Premise 1:
All kings had power over their people.
Premise 2:
James was a king.
Conclusion:
James had power over all his people.
Both premises are true, but the conclusion could be false, or true. Yes James had power over his people, but we just dont know if he had power over ALL his people. This is an invalid deductive argument where both premises are true, but the conclusion can be false.
Thank you very much. Very useful.
Very clear. Compliments! Really nicely done!
Very clear and understandable teaching 👏👏👏
Thank you so much 🙏 🙏 🙏
Douglas TIPTON IS THIS YOU
excellent explanation
Thanks for this helpful video!
No planet is flat; the Earth is a planet; therefore, the Earth is NOT flat.
Great Teacher
Wow very good explanation
This is so well explain. So simple. I'll follow you now!
good job Victor.
Absolutely useful for understanding
Hi, Victor Gijsbers. I want to do PHD in logic. Can i do PhD in your supervision
Can you afford the fee at Leiden?
@@danieljones2048 yeah i can but first i want to know the fee structure
i love this course,thank you for provide 🎈
Why would he use the premise no Dutchman is humble to explain valid deductive form? Seems more like an inductive premise. He even says that it might be false right after explaining.
He's using a hypothetical definition that Dutchmen are not humble to show that the form of the argument is valid. Validity has nothing to do with falsity.
The interesting thing is that he never explained how to determine if a deductive argument is sound or and inductive argument cogent . I wonder why ?
If logic is the study of argumentation, what is rhetoric?
The art of persuation.
- Wikipedia
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.'
-Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary ••••••••••
"Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.'
-Aristotle ••••••••••
'Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.' -Plato ••••••••••
Mick Thanks.
Great lecture on logic, I going to watch it all
This lecture was deceptive due to crucial information being omitted .
best lecture ..............so simple and easy
He left out crucial information.
Well explained
Thanks... It was simple and helpful
rohit singh chauhan••••
He stripped the science of Logic of its usefulness . That's how he made it so simp!e .
Thank you, this video helps a lot.
I love it and keep it up ❤❤🎉🎉
Great Video!!!!
Fantastic !
Is this the professor of logic from the school of science?
He's a man from society that eats food and drinks beverage. He lives in a house with doors and windows.
Thanks very much.
This is a useful. Thank you
Check out "Thinking to Some Purpose " by L. Susan Stebbing .
Really appreciate
all your problems with god !? you have a lot of examples why you choose this one? not an innocent move
Most psychiatric diagnoses use inductive reasoning
Thankyou Sir.
Very useful stuff
Thank you
Excellent
"No medieval king had absolute power of his subjects"
"Victor Gijsbers was a medieval king"
- So, Victor Gijsbers did not have absolute power over his subjects.
We call this a valid argument, but wouldn't it be better to just call it a valid conclusion, and only call the argument valid, if the premises are true?
It just sounds better in my head. A distinction between a valid conclusion (based on the corresponding false premises), and a valid argument (based on the corresponding true premises).
عفيه اريد اسباب ٥نقاط عن revange
Samah Ali •••••
That's what I thought too. Why didn't he ever mention that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence ?
I’m 15 but this is very interesting
I knew just by looking at this guy that he is a medieval king.