Professor, really cannot thank you enough for the amazing content you share. When most people I know binge on latest tv shows, I enjoy binging on your playlists. I've a request - could you add more on this theme and logic? I'm trying to self-study philosophy and logic. The kind of clarity that you bring to topics is very helpful for a layperson like me
8 ปีที่แล้ว +2
Guys, I think we should consider letting Dr.Sadler's commercials run so that he can at least derive a mere drip of income. It's the least we can do to compensate the man for his time and energy!
I googled 4 begging the question videos for an explanation, and not until the 5th video did I find one that had an explanation that I grasped (yours) Therefore: Conclusion! Anyway. Thanks for this. This really helps.
Absolutely incredible content! Thank you so much for sharing (: It's mind-boggling how underrated this channel is. I will certainly share these videos with as many people as I can. Imagine how much better the world would be if logic and reasoning became commonly valued among the masses! ^-^
Thank you for this explanation I think now many times, people who use "begging the question" are really talking about RAISING the question. ... My parents used to tell me "Go to bed now" When. I asked WHY? they answered "because we said so". Okay. Even as a kid I saw the fallacy in that. But then I was a kid. I didn't know that my parents had "other" plans 😉
Bit to add. Logic is normative in nature (“this is how the world SHOULD be”) where science-empiricism is descriptive, and therefore a superior tool for understanding the world (“this is how the world actually IS. Apologies for caps but italics aren’t possible
Hi Greg- many thanks. I have a tiny percentage of the expertise that you have but I at least have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. I have a question: are we right to privilege logic in the way that philosophers do, or are the logical psychologists right (contra Husserl) that logic is just a part of human psychology which represents nothing real, certainly in any kind of hard Platonic sense. Put another way was Wittgenstein right to proclaim that logical necessity is the only necessity, given Ramsey’s criticism that Wittgenstein had used physics (in the tractatus to “prove” his logic claim. All he seems to have done there is to show that physical necessity is the only necessity (which is why I prefer the rigour of scientific empiricism over logic)
good video, do you know of a website which has all the logical fallacies? i thought that wikipedia has them all but then i found another website with more of them that wiki doesnt have, so is there a place i can find them all?
Example3, The cheaters gonna cheat on you. You know he's going to cheat on you is simply a pointed and logical summation of what has been previously stated. There is no fallacy here.
agreed, i dont see it as x=x unless we agree that lecherous, philandering, and duplicitous =cheater to which i disagree. when i read this argument what im seeing is "he is sexually active with many partners and is deceptive, you cant trust men like this, therefore he will cheat." i feel that this argument is flawed with several fallacies but not begging the question as i disagree that lecherous, philandering, and duplicitous=cheater, but that lecherous, philandering, and duplicitous=cheater like qualities
Good vid as usual only I am having difficulty with the Bad Anti-Capitalist Argument being a "begging the question" fallacy. If you map out the argument fully it has the premises, 1. Capitalism is a market-based economic system. 2. A market-based system requires that some people be involved in productive labor. 3. Productive labor in a market-based economy always entails that goods be produced through appropriating the labor of others unfairly. Conclusion: A Capitalist system is exploitative of workers labor. Sounds like a good argument unless premises #3 is not true (which was not discussed in the video of course).
The begging the question fallacy occurs in the third premise. By stating that a market-based economy requires that goods be produced by appropriating the labor of others unfairly, you are already stating that Capitalism is exploitative towards its workers. The false premise occurs also in premise 3. There are theoretical market-based economies which would not be exploitative towards workers. Now, you have to remember that begging the question doesn't necessarily make the conclusion underpinning the argument wrong, it just means the argument is structurally flawed. Therefore, it doesn't effectively support its conclusion.
Another under-valued channel. Cats? Their doing great. Fails? You be the judge from your chair, but the videos are high considering view count. Top tens ad nauseam. Learning critical thinking skills? Maybe use WORDS instead of bombs to sway opinion? Im watching the commercial twice for this Mr. Sadler. PRO TIP: play at 1.5 speed.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
This entire channel is a massive win
Hands down the best explanation to this fallacy on YT
Thanks!
Professor, really cannot thank you enough for the amazing content you share. When most people I know binge on latest tv shows, I enjoy binging on your playlists.
I've a request - could you add more on this theme and logic? I'm trying to self-study philosophy and logic. The kind of clarity that you bring to topics is very helpful for a layperson like me
Guys, I think we should consider letting Dr.Sadler's commercials run so that he can at least derive a mere drip of income. It's the least we can do to compensate the man for his time and energy!
Great video! Looking foward to watching the next fallacy!
OMG THANK YOU AGAIN GREGORY. I just found this channel through your twitter and I love it! Keep up the awesome work! :)
I googled 4 begging the question videos for an explanation, and not until the 5th video did I find one that had an explanation that I grasped (yours)
Therefore:
Conclusion!
Anyway. Thanks for this. This really helps.
Absolutely incredible content! Thank you so much for sharing (: It's mind-boggling how underrated this channel is.
I will certainly share these videos with as many people as I can.
Imagine how much better the world would be if logic and reasoning became commonly valued among the masses! ^-^
Thank you for this explanation
I think now many times, people who use "begging the question" are really talking about RAISING the question.
...
My parents used to tell me
"Go to bed now"
When. I asked WHY?
they answered "because we said so".
Okay. Even as a kid I saw the fallacy in that.
But then I was a kid.
I didn't know that my parents had "other" plans 😉
That's argument from authority
I wish people would stop confusing *_begging_* *the question* with *_raising_* *the question* to be honest.
Thank you soooo much! You explained it in a way my lecturer couldn’t :D love the way it was set out too!
Glad it was useful for you
Bit to add. Logic is normative in nature (“this is how the world SHOULD be”) where science-empiricism is descriptive, and therefore a superior tool for understanding the world (“this is how the world actually IS. Apologies for caps but italics aren’t possible
Thank you for the video.
You're welcome!
Thanks!!
Hi Greg- many thanks. I have a tiny percentage of the expertise that you have but I at least have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. I have a question: are we right to privilege logic in the way that philosophers do, or are the logical psychologists right (contra Husserl) that logic is just a part of human psychology which represents nothing real, certainly in any kind of hard Platonic sense. Put another way was Wittgenstein right to proclaim that logical necessity is the only necessity, given Ramsey’s criticism that Wittgenstein had used physics (in the tractatus to “prove” his logic claim. All he seems to have done there is to show that physical necessity is the only necessity (which is why I prefer the rigour of scientific empiricism over logic)
good video, do you know of a website which has all the logical fallacies? i thought that wikipedia has them all but then i found another website with more of them that wiki doesnt have, so is there a place i can find them all?
Good video :-)
Example3, The cheaters gonna cheat on you. You know he's going to cheat on you is simply a pointed and logical summation of what has been previously stated. There is no fallacy here.
agreed, i dont see it as x=x unless we agree that lecherous, philandering, and duplicitous =cheater to which i disagree. when i read this argument what im seeing is "he is sexually active with many partners and is deceptive, you cant trust men like this, therefore he will cheat." i feel that this argument is flawed with several fallacies but not begging the question as i disagree that lecherous, philandering, and duplicitous=cheater, but that lecherous, philandering, and duplicitous=cheater like qualities
Good vid as usual only I am having difficulty with the Bad Anti-Capitalist Argument being a "begging the question" fallacy. If you map out the argument fully it has the premises,
1. Capitalism is a market-based economic system.
2. A market-based system requires that some people be involved in productive labor.
3. Productive labor in a market-based economy always entails that goods be produced through appropriating the labor of others unfairly.
Conclusion: A Capitalist system is exploitative of workers labor.
Sounds like a good argument unless premises #3 is not true (which was not discussed in the video of course).
It's both begging the question and using a false premise.
The begging the question fallacy occurs in the third premise. By stating that a market-based economy requires that goods be produced by appropriating the labor of others unfairly, you are already stating that Capitalism is exploitative towards its workers. The false premise occurs also in premise 3. There are theoretical market-based economies which would not be exploitative towards workers. Now, you have to remember that begging the question doesn't necessarily make the conclusion underpinning the argument wrong, it just means the argument is structurally flawed. Therefore, it doesn't effectively support its conclusion.
Another under-valued channel. Cats? Their doing great. Fails? You be the judge from your chair, but the videos are high considering view count. Top tens ad nauseam. Learning critical thinking skills? Maybe use WORDS instead of bombs to sway opinion? Im watching the commercial twice for this Mr. Sadler. PRO TIP: play at 1.5 speed.