1:49 I'm gonna stop you right here, what do you mean logic "is the science of"? Doesn't logic literally define how any knowledge can be known ad priori? And science isn't ad priori (except theoretical but that's more math plus empirics than science). It would make more sense to use "is the study of" here. As the derived suffix: "-logy" literally means that "Logic is the study of argument evaluation" Unless you are using the term "science" informally, which would be kinda ironic.😅

bro you paid for bots to comment

None of these examples disprove the JTB framework. They are each misrepresentations of one of the components.

thank you so much, been so worried about failing my final because of this section but this just came in at the buzzer to save me! <3 thank you so much!

Such a great educator!

Watching this to supplement formal logic by Forallx...why does this make so much sense, but validity in my book doesn't? Thanks profe

why does your audio keep cutting out?

Done watching. Ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

After 10 Years still one of the best introduction

Best video on this topic...

Hi there, I hope you're doing well. Your lectures have been outstanding.

Figure ! = Barbara’s Neighbor Feared Maiming!, Figure 2 = Alfonso’s Neighbor Feared Careers! , Figure 3 & 4 = Orlando’s Neighbor Distains Maiming & Distains Neighbors Career!

Justified true belief can be right or it can be wrong, hence, JTB is inductive reasoning/conjecture/opinion.

21:38 Um actually, they would put red herring on the actual trail to…wait, this is a red herring isn’t it? What’s that ? I’m just writing this part so it’s obvious I was making a red herring about his explanation of the mindset one should have when thinking of red herrings in rhetoric? Who am I doing this for? Myself? I can’t stop up-talking? Oh shit, help?

P

I do love how evolutionists know that evolution is still just a theory and yet they also somehow "know" that creationists are wrong. How does that work? isn't that an incorrect inference? Other than that I enjoyed the video and I wish I had had these tools years ago.

Very nicely presented!

I think i found what ive been looking for.

In my video (09-06. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов EEx, EDx, DEx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-6 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes EEx, EDx, DEx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-6: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqXCqmZ9g7RnsLs ) I used information or print-screen(s) from yours video. Thank you!

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper

I'm curious, can you tell me is this argument valid or invalid? No P are S, therefore, some S are P. Where the first Venn graph is shaded in the intersection, and the second Venn graph has an asterisk in the intersection. I think the answer is "valid" but I am not sure. Basicly: if the first Venn has a shaded area and the second Venn has an asterisk in the same area the first Venn is shaded in, is that considered valid? Even though the two S&P Venns are not identical? Thank you.

In my video «!Calculation of syllogisms of modes AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2GQZWSphtykoLs I used print-screen(s) from yours video. Thank you!

In my video «!Calculation of syllogisms of modes AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2GQZWSphtykoLs I used print-screen(s) from yours video. Thank you!

In my video «!Calculation of syllogisms of modes AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2GQZWSphtykoLs I used print-screen(s) from yours video. Thank you!

I am justified in believing this is a Ford advertisement

Not sure why this was not discovered earlier or came in searches earlier. Very clearly explained. Albeit I had to reduce speed to 0.85 to absorb things properly. But a very properly and clearly explained concept. Thanks for same. And hope you resume posting more content.

In my video «09-02. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-2 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-2»: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b17EiICceK6aoZY I used print-screen(s) from yours video. Thank you!

In my video kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH6nnaKanL-MnMU I used video-fragments or print-screens from yours video. Thank you!

SUS CLASES SON MAGISTRALES,

Very nicely done!

In my video kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWKvnmeFeNSAmrc I used video-fragments or print-screens from yours video. Thank you!

In my video kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWKvnmeFeNSAmrc I used video-fragments or print-screens from yours video. Thank you!

nice ppt pres4ntation...

Well the first definition falls apart because there are 20+ step syllogisms (not necessarily in Categorical logic, but the definition didn't clarify whether or not it's exclusively referring to Cat logic)

"ribeiro" not "ribierto" ... "disdain" not "distain" otherwise, great video!

Great review of the attempts to resolve the Gettier's cases!

I know you haven’t posted for years but I just wanna say I listened to this lecture when I was in college as an undergraduate and, almost 6 years later, I’m still re visiting it. Thanks again for your work!

In my video kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2G2ZKt_bMtjqdE I used video-fragments or print-screens from yours video. Thank you!

Comment-7: Example (20:50). Algebraic calculation: TERMS: x - animals, y - mammals, z - tigers. 1. All mammals are animals (yx) 2. All tigers are animals (zx) - - - Calculation: ((yx)*(zx))/X = (xyz)/X = yz = zy - - - Yours: 3. Some tigers are mammals - ERROR CONCLUSION [as zy+zy’ - why?] RIGHT: 3. THERE IS tigers SO AZ mammals [meaning that «animals»] (zy) You are wrong! COMMON SCORE T:F = 1:6 IN ALL: ONE SYLLOGISMS WAS RIGHT and SIX SYLLOGISMS - IS LIE! Sorry, but this is only typical logic algebra :-)

Comment-6: Example (19:59). Algebraic calculation: TERMS: x - animals, y - mammals, z - tigers. 1. All mammals are animals (yx) 2. All tigers are mammals (zy) - - - Calculation: ((yx)*(zy))/Y = (xyz)/Y = xz = zx - - - Yours: 3. Some tigers are animals - ERROR CONCLUSION [as zx+zx’ - why??] RIGHT: 3. THERE IS tigers SO AZ animals [meaning «mammals»] (zx) You are wrong! Score T:F = 1:5

Comment-5: Example (14:45). Algebraic calculation: TERMS: x - penguins, y - Olympic athletes, z - cold-blooded. 1. No Olympic athletes are cold-blooded (y’z) 2. Some penguins are Olympic athletes (xy’+xy) - - - Calculation: ((y’z)*(xy+xy’))/Y = (xy’z)/Y = xz = zx 3. YOUR ERROR: Some penguins are not cold-blooded [zx+zx’ - why???] 3. RIGHT: THERE IS penguins SO AZ cold-blooded (xz) [meaning «Olympic athletes». Because volumes of syllogism terms place only into 3 terms!] You are wrong! Score T:F = 1:4

Comment-4: Example (10:51). Algebraic calculation: TERMS: x - Mid, y - Maj, z - Min 1. No Mid are Maj (x’y) 2. Some Min are Mid (zx+zx’) - - - Calculation: ((x’y)*(zx+zx’))/X = (x’yz)/)/X = yz = zy 3. Yours: Some Min are not Maj - ERROR CONCLUSION 3. RIGHT: THERE IS Min SO AZ not Maj (zy) [Formula «Some Min are not Maj» (instead of (zy)) is (zy+zy’)] You are also not right! You are wrong! Score T:F = 1:3

Comment-3: Example (8:04). Algebraic calculation: TERMS: x - men, y - mortal, z - Socrates. 1. All men are mortal (xy) 2. Socrates are men (zx) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(zx))/X = (xyz)/X = yz = zy 3. Socrates are mortal (zy) You are right! Score T:F = 1:2

Comment-2: Example (6:20). Algebraic calculation: TERMS: x - penguins, y - Olympic athletes, z - cold-blooded. 1. No penguins are Olympic athletes (x’y) 2. No Olympic athletes are cold-blooded (y’z) - - - Calculation: ((x’y)*(y’z))/Y = (x’y*y’z)/Y = 0/Y = 0 3. YOUR ERROR: No penguins are cold-blooded 3. VALID,RIGHT: Term «penguins» NOT CONNECTED WITH term «cold-blooded» (0) [Volumes of these terms are not crossing] You are wrong! Score T:F = 0:2

SO FAR ABSOLUTLY ANY SYLLOGISM CAN CALCULATE AS ALGEBRAIC FORM… I saw some mistakes into this video-clip… Comment-1: Example (5:17). Algebraic calculation: TERMS: x - fireman, y - brave , z - stone. 1. All fireman are brave (things) (xy) 2. No brave things is a (thing made of) stone (y’z) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(y’z))/Y = (xy*y’z)/Y = 0/Y = 0 3. YOUR ERROR: No (thing made of) stone is a fireman 3. VALID,RIGHT: Term «stone» NOT CONNECTED WITH term «fireman» (0) [because volumes of these terms are not crossing] You are wrong! Score «True:False (T:F)» 0:1

Comment-2: Example (8:14). Algebraic calculation: x - Flying Animals, y - Mammals, z - Elephants. 1. Some Flying Animals are Mammals (xy) 2. All Elephants are Mammals (zy) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(zy))/Y = (xyz)/Y = xz = zx - - - Yours: 3. Some Elephants are Flying Animals - ERROR CONCLUSION RIGHT: 3. THERE IS Elephants SO AZ Flying Animals [meaning «Mammals»] (zx) You are also wrong! COMMON SCORE T:F = 0:2 IN ALL: NIL SYLLOGISMS WAS RIGHT and TWO SYLLOGISMS - IS LIE! Sorry, but this is only typical logic algebra :-)

SO FAR ABSOLUTLY ANY SYLLOGISM CAN CALCULATE AS ALGEBRAIC FORM… I saw some mistakes into this video-clip… Comment-1: Example (5:17). Algebraic calculation: x - Watercolors, y - Paintings, z - Masterpieces 1. All Watercolors are Paintings (xy) 2. Some Watercolors are Masterpieces (xz+xz’) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(xz+xz’)/X = (xyz+xyz’)/X = yz+yz’ = y(z+z’) - - - 3. Some Paintings are Masterpieces [and some Paintings are not Masterpieces] (y(z+z’)) You are little wrong! Score «True:False (T:F)» 0:1

Posture corrector

5:28 - 🤣🤣🤣

You can choose for one of the above gifts