This video is the second in a series that introduces the academic discipline of Logic. We define Formal and Informal Logic as well as give a very brief history of Logic in Western Philosophy.
I don't know about smart, but I HAVE been teaching this stuff for almost 30 years, so it's probably really just practice! :-) Seriously though, thanks for watching and I hope you find these videos helpful.
When they say philosophy is impractical they mean logic, which is now computer science, there's something wrong with it they use to study it extensively
03:34 formal, morphology 04:08 informal, induction, quality/quantity evidence 08:16 never going to achieve certainty, degree of probability 09:15 deduction 11:35 propositional logic 15:24 history of logic
(2:22ff.) The idea that one cannot know why arguments fail without first knowing what arguments are is wrongheaded, though it does seem inescapable 'logically'. If someone tells me they can argue with success that the sight of wet pavement immediately outside my window means it must have recently rained, I can respond by refuting the claim or agreeing with it without consideration of the meaning of argumentation. I would discern the cause of the wet pavement, notwithstanding any search for the validity of an argument regarding same, and would not even have to or need to know if anything resembling what we would normally call an "argument" is actually going on in this, my ascertainment of the actual cause. Thus I would not need to know what an argument is, to know if an argument e.g. "the wet pavement was not caused by rain but by a garden hose" is true or not: I know the 'argument' is a success or not BEFORE I even know the situation as an argument, or therefore what even an 'argument' is...
Thanks, Real Rogers! As I'm still teaching full time, I don't have the kind of time I'd like to be able to make all the videos I'd like, but I will try to keep making them as time comes available. Thanks for watching!
The short answer is yes. There are lots of videos out there that would be helpful. The ones I've posted are from the intro courses I teach and are really basic. The text I use is, "A Concise Introduction to Logic," by Patrick Hurley, but there are many others. And, there's no need to buy a new edition; just find yourself a cheap used one and read through it. The most important thing is adopt a critical (in the academic sense) point of view in as much of your life as possible. It can begin as simply as asking yourself, "why do I believe X," or "what kind of evidence do I have for believing Y," and "Is this good evidence that I've found?" Hang in there!
Haha no way, I’m your exact 10,000th subscriber!! Congrats :) I double checked by unsubscribing and it went back down to 9.99k and I screen recorded, that’s cool.
Hi Wisdom Seeker! Thanks for watching and for your question. I don't think it's a silly question at all. Years ago I taught a series of classes in "Critical Thinking" using the Toulmin text, and I have to admit I always found his explanation of "warrant" confusing. I try to approach it in a very different way. I think of an inference as a unique (i.e., logical or rational) connection between ideas (or statements/propositions). A clear model of this is "implication": if A implies B, and if B implies C, then A implies C. The inference is the connection we comprehend between the premise(s) and conclusion(s). Inferences exist in both inductive and deductive reasoning and are governed by the rules of the various "games" within each. This brings us to warrants. An inference can be warranted or unwarranted based on the rules governing the logical system in which it exists. In a predictive inductive argument, for example, the inference is warranted by the amount, kind, and clarity of the evidence contained in the premises. So my prediction that the sun will rise in the morning is based on my past observations and the observations of others, etc. The more evidence I have, the more warranted the inference is. (In deduction, inferences are warranted by the explicitly defined rules of the system.) So, I don't think of "warrant" as a thing, but rather a description or judgement ABOUT an inference. There's so much more to be said, but I hope that helps a little. All the best!
Hi Syed! Thanks for watching. Not sure I fully grasp your question (perhaps it's meant to be rhetorical), but I guess I'd say, nothing can be anything other than itself. All the best!
I tried hard to imagine how you could’ve explained these concepts clearer, no success! Thank you
Thank you. I am so happy that you made these lectures available.
I can tell how smart you are by the way you use the most precise language available to express your ideas.
I don't know about smart, but I HAVE been teaching this stuff for almost 30 years, so it's probably really just practice! :-)
Seriously though, thanks for watching and I hope you find these videos helpful.
When they say philosophy is impractical they mean logic, which is now computer science, there's something wrong with it they use to study it extensively
Thank You for the overview.
That was exactly what I was looking for.
Many Thanks!
I'm so glad you found this brief overview helpful. There's so much more to learn, so keep learning!!!!
This might be the best example of how to produce a comprehensive overview. Thanks for sharing.
That's very kind of you. Thanks for watching and commenting!
03:34 formal, morphology 04:08 informal, induction, quality/quantity evidence 08:16 never going to achieve certainty, degree of probability 09:15 deduction 11:35 propositional logic 15:24 history of logic
The logic notably show itself in debates, especially in a philosophical or mathematical debate.
That's why this topic is so cricual thanks for video.
Love this video! Series sounds very promising!
Thanks for watching. I hope you find the videos helpful.
Love your lectures! Thank you
I'm so glad you found the video helpful!
(2:22ff.) The idea that one cannot know why arguments fail without first knowing what arguments are is wrongheaded, though it does seem inescapable 'logically'. If someone tells me they can argue with success that the sight of wet pavement immediately outside my window means it must have recently rained, I can respond by refuting the claim or agreeing with it without consideration of the meaning of argumentation. I would discern the cause of the wet pavement, notwithstanding any search for the validity of an argument regarding same, and would not even have to or need to know if anything resembling what we would normally call an "argument" is actually going on in this, my ascertainment of the actual cause. Thus I would not need to know what an argument is, to know if an argument e.g. "the wet pavement was not caused by rain but by a garden hose" is true or not: I know the 'argument' is a success or not BEFORE I even know the situation as an argument, or therefore what even an 'argument' is...
you are a very good and talented teacher, your student must be amongst the best in the world because they have you.
You are very kind.
Thank you
This is so interesting☑️... Please keep it up mate... I support your channel
Thanks, Real Rogers!
As I'm still teaching full time, I don't have the kind of time I'd like to be able to make all the videos I'd like, but I will try to keep making them as time comes available.
Thanks for watching!
Can learning logic help with the improvement of decision making? & if so what are the best books or videos to watch. I can’t afford college.
The short answer is yes.
There are lots of videos out there that would be helpful. The ones I've posted are from the intro courses I teach and are really basic. The text I use is, "A Concise Introduction to Logic," by Patrick Hurley, but there are many others. And, there's no need to buy a new edition; just find yourself a cheap used one and read through it.
The most important thing is adopt a critical (in the academic sense) point of view in as much of your life as possible. It can begin as simply as asking yourself, "why do I believe X," or "what kind of evidence do I have for believing Y," and "Is this good evidence that I've found?"
Hang in there!
thanks
thankyou so much
You are very welcome.
Haha no way, I’m your exact 10,000th subscriber!! Congrats :)
I double checked by unsubscribing and it went back down to 9.99k and I screen recorded, that’s cool.
WOW! Thank you @CharlieHill for being number 10,000!!!!
🙏🙏
Thank You
I'm so glad you found the video helpful.
Silly question...but how would you define 'inference' or warrant as in Toulmin's model.
Hi Wisdom Seeker! Thanks for watching and for your question.
I don't think it's a silly question at all. Years ago I taught a series of classes in "Critical Thinking" using the Toulmin text, and I have to admit I always found his explanation of "warrant" confusing. I try to approach it in a very different way. I think of an inference as a unique (i.e., logical or rational) connection between ideas (or statements/propositions). A clear model of this is "implication": if A implies B, and if B implies C, then A implies C. The inference is the connection we comprehend between the premise(s) and conclusion(s). Inferences exist in both inductive and deductive reasoning and are governed by the rules of the various "games" within each.
This brings us to warrants. An inference can be warranted or unwarranted based on the rules governing the logical system in which it exists. In a predictive inductive argument, for example, the inference is warranted by the amount, kind, and clarity of the evidence contained in the premises. So my prediction that the sun will rise in the morning is based on my past observations and the observations of others, etc. The more evidence I have, the more warranted the inference is. (In deduction, inferences are warranted by the explicitly defined rules of the system.) So, I don't think of "warrant" as a thing, but rather a description or judgement ABOUT an inference.
There's so much more to be said, but I hope that helps a little.
All the best!
Logic is fun
😻
Why do people always forget Busquets smh 😒
I am a new pigeon in this subject. What I can tell you is that logic and philosophy and rational arguments can be everything but God.
Am I right??
Hi Syed! Thanks for watching.
Not sure I fully grasp your question (perhaps it's meant to be rhetorical), but I guess I'd say, nothing can be anything other than itself.
All the best!
Logic is god is the law of the infinite universe
bikky khatane jo baaat waale
Thanks!
🍕
Thank you