You CAN see it with your eyes. The fact eyes are an imperfect tool don't allow you to see objective reality perfectly doesn't mean you aren't observing it.

@avatar2580 Glad it helped! I get a lot of viewers from India. Is there a test of some kind that is driving students to search for this content? What other kinds of logic videos would be helpful?

@geoffcrumblin9850 There's nothing logically incompatible about the world's religions and the existence of aliens. In fact, C.S. Lewis, a well-known Christian apologist from the 20th century, wrote a trilogy of science fiction books exploring the idea of what Christianity might look like given the existence of other life forms.

Interesting question! But you don't have to define truth in order to define validity, otherwise you run into _definitional regress_ where every word used in a definition must itself be defined by other words, but those words also require definitions, which require more words, and thus more definitions, and so on forever in an infinite regress. But if you have questions about truth and its relation to reality, try my video on objective truth: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXuQYYyAlNeJl8k

@@LetsGetLogical I will, thank you.

A few honest questions: Do you _really_ think I've never read the Wikipedia article and am unaware of the issues discussed there? Is it really your best judgment that I am unaware of burden of proof? And finally, is it really your considered judgment that the prior probability of all gods is zero? These are remarkable conclusions to arrive at.

Yes, sounds like you might have abductive reasoning in mind.

You can create a visual representation any way you'd like, but the way shown in the video is how to do it in the standard Venn system.

@@LetsGetLogical Thanks for your reply

Great question. The precision you're asking about is exactly what the discipline of Statistics is for. But in the case of everyday inductive reasoning, it tends to be just common sense ball park estimates of probability, nothing precise.

​@@LetsGetLogicalThank you! Would you mind sharing some (introductory) books or references of statistical-based inductive reasoning?

Don't have any book recommendations off the top of my head but do a search on Bayesian reasoning and you'll have a fun rabbit hole to go down.

@simply_oat755 You say, "If they were both also described as non physical personal beings your current argument would collapse..." This is a mistake because a non-physical teapot is clearly incoherent. A non-physical flying spaghetti monster is clearly incoherent. But a non-physical consciousness that is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing is not clearly incoherent. Of course, there are interesting arguments attempting to show that God's properties are inconsistent. (Maybe they even succeed.) But that requires argument. It's not obvious. A non-physical teapot, on the other hand, is obvious nonsense.

@simply_oat755 You say, "Good try." What do you think I was trying to do? We agree it's a mistake in reasoning.

You've nicely expressed the philosophical problem of skepticism.

@@LetsGetLogical, thank you I was wondering what’s your take on that skeptical statement above? Not to put labels here, it’s just that my impression is that you lean towards metaphysical realism (based on your path of thoughts in the video), is that so? If yes, I’m curious to hear what place this default subjectivity of our consciousness takes in your objective reality formula? How doesn’t it impede the perception?

​@@nataliak782 I take the more or less common view in contemporary analytic philosophy that we access the objective external world _fallibly_ through our subjective experience. On this view, there's not much at all about the contingent external world that we can know with certainty. But we sometimes have _enough_ justification such that our belief amounts to knowledge. Justification of this sort is a messy affair-experience, inductive reasoning, inference to the best explanation-but it gets the job done. However, an overall stance of epistemic humility is on order, especially when the problem of disagreement is considered. If interested, you can see my video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKmpe3aXha-BpJI.

@@LetsGetLogical, appreciate your detailed explanation 🙏🏻 And it seems I got the wrong impression about your leaning towards mataphysical realism 100% with you on the approach of balancing between the applied knowledge and epistemic humility! All theories that get enough justification to be useful in the determined range of cases are great to use as the frame of reference to get the job done. At the same time, it’s also important to remember of the fallibility to avoid fanatical clinging onto some viewpoint when it fails to explain a phenomenon out of the range of applicable ones. And, of course, epistemic humility is especially constructive and rewarding when it comes to the problem of disagreement Again, enjoyed our conversation and your videos! Looking forward to the new ones ✨

@RickyRollDoesAnimations Thanks for your thoughtful questions. They are subtle and I can't give subtle replies on YT but here are some quick thoughts: Re 1: You make a good point. But what I say here is not meant as a _proof_ that relativism is false. Locating the wrongness of puppy kicking outside the act itself is something a theory _can_ do. It's just that the move has its costs. For instance, it leaves the outside observer (e.g. God or society) without a _reason_ for judging puppy-kicking to be right or wrong. The judgment would be wholly arbitrary. Because if there were good reasons to think it right or wrong, then _those reasons_ are what make it right or wrong, not the observer's judgment. Re 2: Again, you're right. But in philosophy, _everything_ leads to everything else and you can't chase down every rabbit trail. So you have to just take some things for granted in any given conversation. If we had to settle the nature of _reasons_ before discussing relativism, we'd never get to the discussion of relativism. So for the sake of the argument, we assume that we have a (rough) grasp of what good and bad reasons might look like. I say we don't have to pin down the exact criteria as to what counts as a good reason before knowing that a wholly arbitrary judgment is _not_ a good reason for thinking something is right or wrong. Re 3: Not sure I fully understand you here, but it sounds like you're suggesting something like this: "Okay, maybe morality _really is_ built on an unsuitable foundation." And I agree that's a possibility. I just don't think it's the possibility that enjoys the most rational support. My own view is that moral realism has plenty of rational support in its favor. No, I can't _prove_ that moral realism is true and just like any other philosophical theory it has objections to it that make me pause. Certainty is just not on the table when it comes to philosophy! But as for moral realism, I think it enjoys about as much rational support as any other substantive philosophical thesis.

Nice. Yes, just a little exposure to the basics of logic-like knowing the difference between valid and sound-really helps in philosophy discussion.

@Wow-hr1gl It's not comparing God with coins or cards. It's just an illustration of how probability theory works and the difference between a probability on background knowledge alone vs probability on background knowledge + a piece of evidence. What is flawed about the teapot and FSM-or if not flawed, at least worthy of careful scrutiny-is the idea that teapot and FSM _on background knowledge alone_ are helpfully similar to God on background knowledge alone.

@kossnfx I understand why you would think so. But then you'd have a Euler diagram, not a Venn diagram. What you see here in this video is the standard Venn diagram for universal affirmative statements (i.e. categorical sentences of the form "All S are P.")

Prove? No. Reason to be unlikely? Yes.

@-TheUnkownUser Thanks for this! I disagree, of course, that I'm committing fallacies or being uncharitable, but there's no doubt I could have been more clear and I can see why you see things your way. The extent to which the video struck you as not fair-minded is the extent to which I failed. When I find the time, I'll go through the time stamps and consider your points. I've been thinking of making a follow up video.

Thanks for the detail about the publishing date. I probably pulled it from OUP like you guessed!

the observer and the observed are one

Hmm. What do you think the odds are that there's a teapot floating in space? Not super low?

I hope the suggestions at the end were helpful! Better to have your students evaluate whether claims are _true_ . And the only way to do that is to evaluate whether the claims are _justified_ or _well-supported_ or backed by _good reasons_ . Then you're in a position to know whether to _believe_ the claim or not. The terms 'fact' and 'opinion' need not come into it at all.

Dont click read more Dont.....