I agree!! I would love to go through all the aspects of Logic with Matt. I love how he thinks, and would love to hear the detailed version of Logic with Matt!!!
A friend of mine recently said, "I find that people who focus on Logical Fallacies don't actually care about the larger, moral truth." I retorted, "I find that people who willfully ignore Logical Fallacies care more about _feeling_ right than actually _being_ right."
There's a few ways i can interpret what your friend said. "I find that people who focus on Logical Fallacies don't actually care about the larger, moral truth." - I find that people who focus on Logical Fallacies don't care about emotions, or pain or suffering, or don't care about truth. - People are preoccupied with proving other people wrong rather than learning about what is morally true. (true moral understandings of how we 'should' treat one another) - Education is pointless when you can appeal to moral truths, so don't bother learning(for yourself) since all the learning has already been done for you in advance, just trust in it. - The bigger picture is already known, it outweighs the smaller picture. The bigger picture being "how to live", everything else is of smaller consequence. -Since "logical fallacies" are mistakes, people who focus on learning about mistakes can't learn the truth(a better way to live life) or better themselves. This one is particularly poisonous/harmful thinking to me since personal change and development in life, and for life, comes from addressing ones own mistakes that caused harmful thinking or harmful behaviour, and generates the desire to better oneself for you and those you love around you. I could interpret it better as - You don't care about compassion if you have a motivation to study and learn from the mistakes you make: Improving oneself from compassion isn't moral truth(to them). Being truthful and compassionate IS serving to the greater idea of moral truth, because we care about life. This is actually the neglect i see a lot from Christians. A neglect of themselves which they learn to treat themselves like this. That's the sacrifice i see them make with their bible. There was so much wrong i saw in that sentence your friend said that i wanted to pin point it for myself, and i didn't know what it was until i started writing about it. Glad i did.
@@Ignirium In the context of the conversation we were having, his point was that people who focus on the soundness of Logic and/or Evidence don't care about the suffering that the _bad arguments_ sought to alleviate. My points were that bad _evidence_ distorts the degree of suffering we seek to address, and bad _logic_ may fail to address it effectively. As such...in a society that seems to increasingly mistake emotions _for_ evidence and often cares more about feelings _than_ facts, bad Logic and/or Evidence are (at best) not the most effective means of decreasing suffering OR discovering truth, moral or otherwise.
Since I thought it would be awesome if the book recommendations were added to the video description, I'm just going to post them in my comment. I hope I got them right. In this video Matt Dillahunty recommended: Patrick J. Hurley - A concise introduction to Logic Doug Walton - Informal Logic
I started a Skeptics group at my company for atheists and we do Fallacy Friday’s where I name a Fallacy what it is and an example and I’ve been posting the foundations of logic staring with presuppositions and next one was the logical absolutes. I could really adopt some of your in depth videos to my posts!
We know that the Sun is about 4,603E9 years old, but we also know that it'll die some day. It's a fact that some day people will stop talking about Sokrates.
@@RobiFilth until it happens its not a fact. We know the sun will die based on our knowledge of stars and the life cycle they go through. So long as philosophy is a thing, Socrates will always be talked about. Given that philosophy has a tendancy to throw up more questions with every answer, it's unlikely that will happen. Not saying impossible. But very unlikely. And it's Socrates 😋
Helpful. The more we hear, the more we hone our understanding, our thinking. Like music we love, listening to and absorbing these concepts is a pleasure. You can always hear something new or deeper. Plus, it's Matt!
You are right Matt, in saying the vast majority of people watching will not only not understand, but also no go out and learn more about logic in depth. But whatever the number, many, many more WILL get to know and exercise the fundamental principles of logic not just in their lives but hopefully in others aswell, with you at the helm
I hope you realize this just means I have to watch all your videos over again now that I have a small bit of understanding of how logic works. Know that your hard work is appreciated. Thank you, Matt.
Hi Matt, ive been a fan for years. Ive always wanted you to write about logic and reasoning. But THIS is just as good. I loved this video, I took notes and im looking up your book recommendations. To address your questions, while there are a lot of resources out there, you have an amplified voice and a whole community who would greatly benefit from your presentation. Also a lot of people dont spend time reading, having it presented in this way will allow it to reach a larger audience and demographic.
At 14:37 you confuse the Euthyphro Dilemma with the Problem of Evil The Euthyphro Dilemma is the question of whether or not something is pious because of the gods' appreciation, or if the gods are appreciative because of the piousness. As a computer science student who took introductory logic classes, I really enjoy your talks on logic. I would definitely be into a logic series! I think it might serve the greatest utility if it is a logic course focused on applications in apologetics and counter-apologetics, informal and formal.
Very informative. To answer your question, yes continue. The process of understanding and breaking down arguments is hard to find information on. Thank you.
I hope I’m not being a contrarian by disagreeing with the majority, but I think that there is an abundance of sources addressing the nuts and bolts of logic. I feel your teaching style is exemplary and accessible, but is far more useful in addressing how to use the tools than how those tools work. If the goal is to formulate and respond to theistic arguments, I feel your time is better spent in offering information not easily found; namely, your knowledge and experience in expressing and responding to ideas in a clear and useful way. Respect to the advocates for a logic 101 course.
I have attempted to learn formal logic over the years. Having a refresher from Matt would be awesome. I don’t have the opportunity to use formal logic a lot so the more I hear it the more of it sticks.
I watched this about 2 weeks ago and returned because I lost my notes that had the book titles. Was able to snag one for $7 with s&h. Can’t wait to dive in. Thanks!
matt has a a brilliant gift of being able to convey the meaning and concepts of an idea or concept to other people in such a way that they will easily understand it. This is why it would be far better if we were learning this from him.
Stop fucking playing, man. You know very well that, if you offer a detailed, precise description of the principles of logic, we're going to eat that shit up without hesitation and then request seconds. What's next, asking if we want clean water, healthy children or bags of U.S. currency in large denominations? Umm.. yeah! I'm not a patron but you've brought me one step closer to signing up. Peace.
Logic 101 from others is OK, but you have a way of explaining things in terms more people seems to understand. I think we appreciate that and would like to see more to help society understand the basics of logic.
... as a mathematical sort of person, the allied logics are of some interest to me. We know how the various kinds of logic developed; we know they rely on axiomatic rules, AND we know that humans developed it (no gods required! :0) We also know that language semantics are important in phrasing propositions - see how WLC manipulates the language in his brand of the cosmological argument for instance!! By and large, though, religionists who employ such methods are only interested in whether it *sounds* good or not - I don't think many theists became theists listening to such stuff. If it produces ANY evidence at all, it is only abstract and frequently boring :0) Most propositions are easy to refute and are really a waste of time (though Philosophers and Theologians seem to love it. (!) In any case, Kurt Gödel dropped a bombshell on the world of math and logic in the 1930's - worth looking at: - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
To me is really worth it to take the time to practice and learn all of this properly. I wouldn't mind taking months studying a logic course, specially if is yours
I love deep dives into logic. Alex Malpass was a great guest of yours for this. I especially want to better cultivate the ability to structure normal language into logical forms to help us avoid fallacies. I also want to see logic applied just as diligently to other common propositions as we apply it to religious ones.
There is still a scenario where we are justified in accepting the premises and rejecting the conclusion, that would be in response to a non sequitur. Keep it up Matt!
After bienge watching/podcasting this and Talk Heathen. I think my mindset is leaning to learning logic. I started with Michael Shermer's, "Why People Believe Weird Things" and Steve Novella's, "Your Deceptive Mind".
A course on the fundamentals of Logic (Venne's diagrams, truth tables, fallacies, etc...) but for each, show how you have intuitively used them in conversations (with the support of small video clip examples drawn from your debates or AXP show). On another line of thought, a video on the ethics of public discourse and debate would be very interesting. How to approach emotionally, culturally or politically sensitive subjects and "hot button" issues. Are there any subjects which should be "untouchable", should free speech be absolute, can speech sometimes be considered violence, etc...
The atheist community is such a great jumping-off point for learning about all kinds of stuff. Refutations of young-Earth creationist arguments often include a basic explanation of how science works as well as cool scientific facts. Refutations of arguments for the accuracy of scripture are perfect for dipping one's toe into history and archaeology. Philosophical and moral arguments for or involving a god make for good primers on subjects like philosophy, psychology and ethics. And of course, the general discussion about what makes an argument valid or not can help one to learn... well, what makes an argument valid or not.
@@ElroyMF1 Yes, I watch all of them, I want more, it's been awhile since he did a video on any formal apologetic and there are some he still hasn't covered.
Very informative, Matt! I have a question, at 7:24, how did you get to 256? Three statements with one of four letters each would be 4^3=64 possible combinations.
There are also 4 possible modes (or positioning) of the middle term, which make the number of syllogisms N = 4^3 × 4 = 256 Edit : the correct term is "figure", not mode. My bad.
Your right, all men have a limited attention span, your bite size discussion does make it easier to digest at our leisure. I need to know something to a high level of confidence before I can comfortably move on.
I've found that there is value in going into neccessary and sufficient conditions, and then forming contrapositives. That helps identifying the flaw in the "all men are mortal, Socrates is mortal, therefore Socrates is a man" argument. But that may just be an LSAT thing. Truthfully, studying for the lsat 10 years ago pushed me more towards atheism than any other event, because it showed me all of the logical flaws in the arguments made by apologists, including myself at the time. (Thanks TestMasters!!! Lol)
The A E I and O thing is super strange considering in predicate logic, the existential quantifier is a sort of backwards E. Seems like it’s asking for confusion
one of my favorite "oddities" of logical syllogisms is when you have a valid syllogism that has a true conclusion but the syllogism itself is unsound. P1: All dogs are mammals P2: my pet Fido is a dog C: Therefore, Fido is a mammal but what if my pet Fido is a cat? The syllogism is valid, but unsound, and yet the conclusion is actually true... you just can't use this syllogism to prove the truth of the conclusion.
I'd love a logic course with Matt. I did have a point of confusion though. Matt seemed to be calling what I've always known as one version of "The Problem of Evil" the "Euthyphro Dilemma." I've always thought that the Euthyphro Dilemma had more to do with whether the law is subject to the will of a god or gods, or whether it's the other way around where the gods are simply the mouthpieces of the intrinsic laws of the universe. Am I confusing this or was it simply a misspeak?
Right at the beginning, Matt barely caught himself ... almost said, “You can fend your seed back in.” Ah, human speech is so tricky. I do stuff like that all the time. Once, in a business meeting, I talked about dotting my T’s and crossing my I’s. LMAO
One way to get information about logic out without doing everything yourself is to maybe put together links to good resources about logic and put them in the description of a video. The video could just be a heads up about what's in the description box.
My brain . . .can't function quite quick enough. . .dyslexia. . .laziness and depression keep me from understanding higher levels of logical levels of logic
You have dyslexia, laziness, and depression. Dyslexia, laziness, and depression can inhibit your ability to understand higher forms of logic Therefore, you are having a hard time understanding higher forms of logic. You had your own syllogism hidden in there lol
Take it slow, be patient with yourself , and go step by step and make sure you understand something before moving on. And dont place too much pressure on yourself or beat yourself up for taking longer than others. The good thing about videos and books is you can always back track and reread or rewatch. On youtube, you can even slow the video down to 0.75% speed to give your brain more time to process what is being said. Hope this can help you.
Sacred spaghetti, is it easy to point out fallacies and poke holes in religious positions. But boi, it's *much* harder to spot when you're the one making the fallacies. Matt, could you give any advice on spotting weak points in one's own arguments?
Do you have any examples of a surprising insight that can be demonstrated with a logical syllogism, to counter the often asserted claim that logic is synonymous with common sense?
We once thought that it was common sense that the sun revolved around the earth. I don’t think I can put this in a structured syllogism, and I may not understand your question but I thought it was interesting.
I'd be intrested in working on an android app using clips to teach and use as a reference on the fly. The design work on the database and perhaps An interactive, progressive characterization of an arguement type questionnaire feature would be very interesting. Questions designed to suss out precept ozish alyssum for example, or once we haven't nailed down to a tetological argument, is there a beach, watch, writing,, etc ? Perhaps we can help people analyze the arguments people are making and find the right information to refute these claims, using these powerful computers in everyone's pockets.
I don't think you correctly identified the Euthyphro dilemma. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma What you cited is attributed to Epicurus: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Epicurus#Disputed
A course in Logic with Matt. Yes please, looking forward to it. Thank you.
I agree!! I would love to go through all the aspects of Logic with Matt. I love how he thinks, and would love to hear the detailed version of Logic with Matt!!!
@ابو ليث الخطيب thats honestly really gross
A friend of mine recently said, "I find that people who focus on Logical Fallacies don't actually care about the larger, moral truth." I retorted, "I find that people who willfully ignore Logical Fallacies care more about _feeling_ right than actually _being_ right."
There's a few ways i can interpret what your friend said.
"I find that people who focus on Logical Fallacies don't actually care about the larger, moral truth."
- I find that people who focus on Logical Fallacies don't care about emotions, or pain or suffering, or don't care about truth.
- People are preoccupied with proving other people wrong rather than learning about what is morally true. (true moral understandings of how we 'should' treat one another)
- Education is pointless when you can appeal to moral truths, so don't bother learning(for yourself) since all the learning has already been done for you in advance, just trust in it.
- The bigger picture is already known, it outweighs the smaller picture. The bigger picture being "how to live", everything else is of smaller consequence.
-Since "logical fallacies" are mistakes, people who focus on learning about mistakes can't learn the truth(a better way to live life) or better themselves.
This one is particularly poisonous/harmful thinking to me since personal change and development in life, and for life, comes from addressing ones own mistakes that caused harmful thinking or harmful behaviour, and generates the desire to better oneself for you and those you love around you.
I could interpret it better as
- You don't care about compassion if you have a motivation to study and learn from the mistakes you make: Improving oneself from compassion isn't moral truth(to them).
Being truthful and compassionate IS serving to the greater idea of moral truth, because we care about life. This is actually the neglect i see a lot from Christians. A neglect of themselves which they learn to treat themselves like this. That's the sacrifice i see them make with their bible.
There was so much wrong i saw in that sentence your friend said that i wanted to pin point it for myself, and i didn't know what it was until i started writing about it. Glad i did.
@@Ignirium In the context of the conversation we were having, his point was that people who focus on the soundness of Logic and/or Evidence don't care about the suffering that the _bad arguments_ sought to alleviate. My points were that bad _evidence_ distorts the degree of suffering we seek to address, and bad _logic_ may fail to address it effectively. As such...in a society that seems to increasingly mistake emotions _for_ evidence and often cares more about feelings _than_ facts, bad Logic and/or Evidence are (at best) not the most effective means of decreasing suffering OR discovering truth, moral or otherwise.
Matt knows how to explain things very easily for the attention deficit type mind like my own.
Since I thought it would be awesome if the book recommendations were added to the video description, I'm just going to post them in my comment. I hope I got them right. In this video Matt Dillahunty recommended:
Patrick J. Hurley - A concise introduction to Logic
Doug Walton - Informal Logic
I agree. I just got done with Justice by Michael Sandel and need something new
Thanks for noticing this!
Wish I saw that before I rewinded the video couple times to get the authors and titles :P
Thanks.
I started a Skeptics group at my company for atheists and we do Fallacy Friday’s where I name a Fallacy what it is and an example and I’ve been posting the foundations of logic staring with presuppositions and next one was the logical absolutes. I could really adopt some of your in depth videos to my posts!
For fallacies, see the Fallacy of the Week series, and its main character , a woo merchant who uses almost every fallacy in the book ...
Haha. Brave. A lot of employers would take issue with that group.
You're still talking about Socrates 2400 years later… he seems pretty immortal to me.
We know that the Sun is about 4,603E9 years old, but we also know that it'll die some day.
It's a fact that some day people will stop talking about Sokrates.
@@RobiFilth until it happens its not a fact. We know the sun will die based on our knowledge of stars and the life cycle they go through. So long as philosophy is a thing, Socrates will always be talked about. Given that philosophy has a tendancy to throw up more questions with every answer, it's unlikely that will happen. Not saying impossible. But very unlikely.
And it's Socrates 😋
LOL
how do you know he just won't die later? still means he's mortal fam.
Nice one. I got it. :-)
I would rather watch and listen to you explaining logic than almost anyone else. I vote yes.
Helpful. The more we hear, the more we hone our understanding, our thinking. Like music we love, listening to and absorbing these concepts is a pleasure. You can always hear something new or deeper. Plus, it's Matt!
I would absolutely watch a logic course from you, Matt. Graphics or not, your speech is clear and communicative enough to be helpful.
You are right Matt, in saying the vast majority of people watching will not only not understand, but also no go out and learn more about logic in depth. But whatever the number, many, many more WILL get to know and exercise the fundamental principles of logic not just in their lives but hopefully in others aswell, with you at the helm
Yes, I would appreciate a step by step course in logic. This way I can keep all of it in one place. Thank you.
Matt, if you create a course we would be grateful and happy!
You are a great explainer and communicator!
It has been almost 40 years since I took philosophy 101&102. Your practical version with examples would be a great refresher.
I hope you realize this just means I have to watch all your videos over again now that I have a small bit of understanding of how logic works. Know that your hard work is appreciated. Thank you, Matt.
Hi Matt, ive been a fan for years. Ive always wanted you to write about logic and reasoning. But THIS is just as good. I loved this video, I took notes and im looking up your book recommendations.
To address your questions, while there are a lot of resources out there, you have an amplified voice and a whole community who would greatly benefit from your presentation. Also a lot of people dont spend time reading, having it presented in this way will allow it to reach a larger audience and demographic.
Matt, you are a good teacher. I would love to see more logic videos from you.
These videos are always wondefully informative and very useful, Matt. Thanks for all you've done and all you continue to do :)
At 14:37 you confuse the Euthyphro Dilemma with the Problem of Evil
The Euthyphro Dilemma is the question of whether or not something is pious because of the gods' appreciation, or if the gods are appreciative because of the piousness.
As a computer science student who took introductory logic classes, I really enjoy your talks on logic. I would definitely be into a logic series! I think it might serve the greatest utility if it is a logic course focused on applications in apologetics and counter-apologetics, informal and formal.
Very informative. To answer your question, yes continue. The process of understanding and breaking down arguments is hard to find information on. Thank you.
I loved this video.
I enjoy watching videos that are similar to videos I love.
Therefore, I would enjoy watching future videos similar to this video.
Really helpful and insightful. I love finding out things I need to know about. Would love the logic 101 discussion.
I hope you know how special you are Matt. Keep rocking this world.
I hope I’m not being a contrarian by disagreeing with the majority, but I think that there is an abundance of sources addressing the nuts and bolts of logic. I feel your teaching style is exemplary and accessible, but is far more useful in addressing how to use the tools than how those tools work.
If the goal is to formulate and respond to theistic arguments, I feel your time is better spent in offering information not easily found; namely, your knowledge and experience in expressing and responding to ideas in a clear and useful way.
Respect to the advocates for a logic 101 course.
I have attempted to learn formal logic over the years. Having a refresher from Matt would be awesome. I don’t have the opportunity to use formal logic a lot so the more I hear it the more of it sticks.
Great video Matt, very helpful and informative, and I think videos like this, more detailed even, would be a very useful resource, thx
: )
I'm back on board! Used to watch Matt back in the day of Atheist experience and numerous religious debates ... Just found his channel!
I watched this about 2 weeks ago and returned because I lost my notes that had the book titles. Was able to snag one for $7 with s&h. Can’t wait to dive in. Thanks!
I ADORE truth tables. But I'm a freak. That was a 4.0 semester for me at Lincoln Tech
;-}
I remember logical syllogisms in my Logic course in college. I was so confused. I had never seen one before.
This is, in my opinion, the best video published by AtD and Matt.
This is honestly perfect material for any logic/philosphy course
At ~14:35 you were describing the problem of evil, not the Euthyphro dilemma.
He must have meant Epicurus. Darn E names.
Yes, I was gonna say that it is not that. Haha.
matt has a a brilliant gift of being able to convey the meaning and concepts of an idea or concept to other people in such a way that they will easily understand it. This is why it would be far better if we were learning this from him.
I just remembered a quote from Stranger In A Strange Land. "What colour is that house on the hill?" "It is white on this side."
This comment 👍!
"I believe what I see, but don't assume anything else"
Stop fucking playing, man. You know very well that, if you offer a detailed, precise description of the principles of logic, we're going to eat that shit up without hesitation and then request seconds. What's next, asking if we want clean water, healthy children or bags of U.S. currency in large denominations? Umm.. yeah! I'm not a patron but you've brought me one step closer to signing up. Peace.
Hell yeah I'd want a series of 101 on logic by Matt 😍
I’d very much appreciate a logic 101 from you Matt.
I like this stuff Matt. Please go deeper.
You sure you just want to leave your sentence this open ended? Lol.
Nebulous lol
That could be a great series... 'balls deep with matt'
Too easy.
Logic 101 from others is OK, but you have a way of explaining things in terms more people seems to understand. I think we appreciate that and would like to see more to help society understand the basics of logic.
All otters can swim.
I can swim.
Therefore I am an otter. :)
That's clearly flawed
I'm looking forward to the next one. I wouldn't mind a chalk board, or whatever, for the difficult bits.
... as a mathematical sort of person, the allied logics are of some interest to me. We know how the various kinds of logic developed; we know they rely on axiomatic rules, AND we know that humans developed it (no gods required! :0) We also know that language semantics are important in phrasing propositions - see how WLC manipulates the language in his brand of the cosmological argument for instance!!
By and large, though, religionists who employ such methods are only interested in whether it *sounds* good or not - I don't think many theists became theists listening to such stuff. If it produces ANY evidence at all, it is only abstract and frequently boring :0) Most propositions are easy to refute and are really a waste of time (though Philosophers and Theologians seem to love it. (!) In any case, Kurt Gödel dropped a bombshell on the world of math and logic in the 1930's - worth looking at: - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Looking forward to learning more, thanks Matt!
I'm very interested for one. You are a pleasure listen to on any subject! Thanks!
Matt, please go for it. There ain't enough content. I want to learn from you. Thank you. You're awesome.
To me is really worth it to take the time to practice and learn all of this properly. I wouldn't mind taking months studying a logic course, specially if is yours
I'd love some logic 101 video from you Matt!
A course in Logic with Matt. Yes, please.
5:03 As my philosophy teacher put it "1. All Dogs are mortal 2. Socrates is mortal 3. Therefore Socrates is a dog", while trying to trip us up
Thank you for this very important explanation. I personally learn better "with circles" as you mentioned :-)
I love deep dives into logic. Alex Malpass was a great guest of yours for this. I especially want to better cultivate the ability to structure normal language into logical forms to help us avoid fallacies. I also want to see logic applied just as diligently to other common propositions as we apply it to religious ones.
this is essential & so needed by the everyday people
thhank you matt
love your impact on my life
christopher hitchens smiles on you...lol
There is still a scenario where we are justified in accepting the premises and rejecting the conclusion, that would be in response to a non sequitur. Keep it up Matt!
Still waiting for the Great Courses plus to have Matt do lectures on logic.
Two negatives don't make a positive, but three lefts make a right, lol
Yes! I'd love to hear your view of logic and critical thinking, sir.
After bienge watching/podcasting this and Talk Heathen. I think my mindset is leaning to learning logic. I started with Michael Shermer's, "Why People Believe Weird Things" and Steve Novella's, "Your Deceptive Mind".
Yes! I would love to learn about logic from you.
A course on the fundamentals of Logic (Venne's diagrams, truth tables, fallacies, etc...) but for each, show how you have intuitively used them in conversations (with the support of small video clip examples drawn from your debates or AXP show). On another line of thought, a video on the ethics of public discourse and debate would be very interesting. How to approach emotionally, culturally or politically sensitive subjects and "hot button" issues. Are there any subjects which should be "untouchable", should free speech be absolute, can speech sometimes be considered violence, etc...
Very useful thank you. I, on average, understand complex topics just a bit better the way you lay them out.
I just thought of this as: the ends don't justify the means.
Please let me know if this is a flawed analogy.
Very helpful video, Matt!
The atheist community is such a great jumping-off point for learning about all kinds of stuff.
Refutations of young-Earth creationist arguments often include a basic explanation of how science works as well as cool scientific facts.
Refutations of arguments for the accuracy of scripture are perfect for dipping one's toe into history and archaeology.
Philosophical and moral arguments for or involving a god make for good primers on subjects like philosophy, psychology and ethics.
And of course, the general discussion about what makes an argument valid or not can help one to learn... well, what makes an argument valid or not.
Anyone else notice the subtle shade thrown at Steve McRae as far as the whole "agnostic/atheist" tiff is concerned?
You Are My Bible To Reality, Now It Makes Sense. Thankx Matt.
Brother keep the info coming!
Without a doubt, yes, it would be great to have a "logic 101" thing with Mr. Dillahunty.
While I'm sure I would enjoy Logic 101 with Matt, I'd rather see more direct addressing of major apologetics arguments.
He does that, you just have to look them up
@@ElroyMF1 Yes, I watch all of them, I want more, it's been awhile since he did a video on any formal apologetic and there are some he still hasn't covered.
This helps A LOT thank you.
Very informative, Matt! I have a question, at 7:24, how did you get to 256? Three statements with one of four letters each would be 4^3=64 possible combinations.
There are also 4 possible modes (or positioning) of the middle term, which make the number of syllogisms N = 4^3 × 4 = 256
Edit : the correct term is "figure", not mode. My bad.
Would definitely be on board for a logic 101 with you Matt. Some graphics would help
I really love the "Tough" :-)
Your right, all men have a limited attention span, your bite size discussion does make it easier to digest at our leisure. I need to know something to a high level of confidence before I can comfortably move on.
I'd love to watch a 'Logic 101' video from you.
I really appreciated this.
This makes me regret not taking logic in college. I didn't know about its usefulness outside of computer science and philosophy at the time.
Logic 101 Matt! Theory then applied.
I've found that there is value in going into neccessary and sufficient conditions, and then forming contrapositives. That helps identifying the flaw in the "all men are mortal, Socrates is mortal, therefore Socrates is a man" argument.
But that may just be an LSAT thing. Truthfully, studying for the lsat 10 years ago pushed me more towards atheism than any other event, because it showed me all of the logical flaws in the arguments made by apologists, including myself at the time. (Thanks TestMasters!!! Lol)
Great video!
The comments below make me wonder if logic is no longer taught in grade school 🏫
I want the graphics, I want the venn diagrams, I want it all!
Give it to me one more time....
Hey Matt! I found Jesus! (He was hiding in my pantry behind the frosted flakes) ;)
2AHD Cat directly to the right of the jeezits?
@@AMikeStein Oh yes, of course, lol
The A E I and O thing is super strange considering in predicate logic, the existential quantifier is a sort of backwards E.
Seems like it’s asking for confusion
one of my favorite "oddities" of logical syllogisms is when you have a valid syllogism that has a true conclusion but the syllogism itself is unsound.
P1: All dogs are mammals
P2: my pet Fido is a dog
C: Therefore, Fido is a mammal
but what if my pet Fido is a cat? The syllogism is valid, but unsound, and yet the conclusion is actually true... you just can't use this syllogism to prove the truth of the conclusion.
If you guys are interested in this I'd recommend taking a course in discrete math. Very interesting course.
How much math do you have to understand to do that?
I'd love a logic course with Matt. I did have a point of confusion though. Matt seemed to be calling what I've always known as one version of "The Problem of Evil" the "Euthyphro Dilemma." I've always thought that the Euthyphro Dilemma had more to do with whether the law is subject to the will of a god or gods, or whether it's the other way around where the gods are simply the mouthpieces of the intrinsic laws of the universe. Am I confusing this or was it simply a misspeak?
Excellent video...💜
Matt, let's dig in deep.
I own the book the art of logical thinking by william walter atkinson. That's a good one too as it's clear and gives simple explanations.
The concept at 21:00 is something I see missed so much that correcting the premises, conclusions and definitions details the conversation
As a physicist and mathematician my take on it is that mathematics pre-dated formal logic by many tens of thousands of years.
Right at the beginning, Matt barely caught himself ... almost said, “You can fend your seed back in.” Ah, human speech is so tricky. I do stuff like that all the time. Once, in a business meeting, I talked about dotting my T’s and crossing my I’s. LMAO
One way to get information about logic out without doing everything yourself is to maybe put together links to good resources about logic and put them in the description of a video. The video could just be a heads up about what's in the description box.
God dammit Matt! Stop making me smarter, my brain hurts.
My brain . . .can't function quite quick enough. . .dyslexia. . .laziness and depression keep me from understanding higher levels of logical levels of logic
You have dyslexia, laziness, and depression.
Dyslexia, laziness, and depression can inhibit your ability to understand higher forms of logic
Therefore, you are having a hard time understanding higher forms of logic.
You had your own syllogism hidden in there lol
@@BaleighRoseBurris Cheers !
Take it slow, be patient with yourself , and go step by step and make sure you understand something before moving on. And dont place too much pressure on yourself or beat yourself up for taking longer than others. The good thing about videos and books is you can always back track and reread or rewatch. On youtube, you can even slow the video down to 0.75% speed to give your brain more time to process what is being said. Hope this can help you.
@@EpicWarrior131 Thank you
@@BaleighRoseBurris That is not valid. Premise 2 is not universal because of the word 'can', so the conclusion does not necessarily follow.
Sacred spaghetti, is it easy to point out fallacies and poke holes in religious positions. But boi, it's *much* harder to spot when you're the one making the fallacies. Matt, could you give any advice on spotting weak points in one's own arguments?
Do you have any examples of a surprising insight that can be demonstrated with a logical syllogism, to counter the often asserted claim that logic is synonymous with common sense?
We once thought that it was common sense that the sun revolved around the earth.
I don’t think I can put this in a structured syllogism, and I may not understand your question but I thought it was interesting.
If anyone does, I'd like to hear it too.
Can you put the following into a syllogism?
Intelligence = problem, solution, solution
You should do an in depth logic 101 theres some out there but still no matt dillahunty explanation
I'd be intrested in working on an android app using clips to teach and use as a reference on the fly. The design work on the database and perhaps An interactive, progressive characterization of an arguement type questionnaire feature would be very interesting. Questions designed to suss out precept ozish alyssum for example, or once we haven't nailed down to a tetological argument, is there a beach, watch, writing,, etc ?
Perhaps we can help people analyze the arguments people are making and find the right information to refute these claims, using these powerful computers in everyone's pockets.
I don't think you correctly identified the Euthyphro dilemma. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
What you cited is attributed to Epicurus: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Epicurus#Disputed