1.1 Basic Concepts: Arguments, Premises, & Conclusions

This is the first video of the Introduction to Logic series in which Professor Thorsby covers the basics of arguments, premises, and conclusions.

[@klowisito]

KZbin and the vast amount of free educational lectures and materials is truly underrated. This was posted 10 years ago, and still helps people like me who can't buy the good books, nor purchase the access to other lectures. 1st 25minutes into the 40-part series, but I'll already say it: Thank you, Sir Mark!

[@9fallen9one9]

All the books you can't buy are available for free in the internet. I would like you to recommend to the open logic project and see their contents(the beginner book is for all x calgary)

[@notcosteffective9920]

Yea all the books are free online, like zlib. And theres used kindles on eBay for $13

[@notcosteffective9920]

Is he a knight lol

[@juma329]

Totally agree

[@niclassundberg3673]

After spending about 3 days watching most of these videos, I passed my logic exam in philosophy last week. Thank you very much!

[@wedgerut]

YOU HAVE PROFOUNDLY CHANGED HUMANITY THANK YOU PROFESSOR FOR THE FREE WISDOM!

[@Sabofabo]

Psychology students from Maastricht University in the Netherlands salute you.

[@redrojas6239]

Thanks for your contribution to free education. I'm 14 and it's very hard to find exactly what you want to learn, and this is what iv'e been hunting down since my independent delve into psychology.

[@SamMoreno970]

I applaud you!

[@chasejones2193]

If you want to be a Lawyer this is everything you need to know to take Law school exam, I am studying for the LSAT right now and these lessons are really good to reaffirm my studies!

[@jonkeuviuhc1641]

I watche this when I was 13, and it inspired a love for the subject in me. I'm a not a logician or philosopher, but I'm doing a math degree, which is somehow releted. Best wishes!

[@Justin-pu5pb]

MR. Biggles do you have some more tips to help study for the LSAT?

[@insertoyouroemail]

I myself am learning this to better undestand type theory. It's cool how different subjects in mathematics turn out to be the same thing only viewed from different angles.

[@sylviawaititu6906]

I been learning by watching the videos on different logical topics and i'm impressed at the quality teachings offered by Prof. Mark Thorsby. Been of great help thanks .

[@ericplummer6900]

I watch this and play Minecraft at the same time. It literally turns my Minecraft game into a Memory Palace. (I make a palace for each type of course, organic chemistry is next)

[@fiveadayproductions987]

Does that actually work? Might have to try something similar.

[@PhilosophySama]

FiveADayProductions no. Playing games will completely throw you off! Coloring or sketching helps me though

[@koalasquare2145]

@@PhilosophySama Minecraft as a game is very similar to sketching. You can play it passively.

[@tobiokanlawon1562]

This has to be the most genius thing I've heard in a very long time

[@Bilbus7]

@@PhilosophySama lol so you're calling his way wrong yet you say in the next sentence how coloring helps YOU personally? gtfo

[@chenshuwan]

Thank you for making this series. They helped me understand Logic better!

[@sierra9713]

Just wanted to thank you for all the time/effort you put into this! I have been putting my formal logic course off for ages because I was intimidated. Now I have a solid understanding to start from. Thanks again!

[@Carolkeel]

Great video! I learned more in these 30 minutes than in my 2 hour lecture!

[@noumanqureshi6814]

which university?

[@razzmatazz123]

so do i

[@razielgw]

Absolutely great course! It's not walk in the park, but very complex and advanced course. Thanks for your effort Mark!!!

[@melissapeace4448]

I was so annoyed by popular LSAT prep books that teach to identify question types instead of basic logic as the LSAC, producers of the LSAT, suggest. Thank you so much for this lesson! I ordered a copy of A concise Introduction to Logic. I noticed in the prelude Hurley states logic is important for LSAT, GRE, GMAT, etc. Prep books should be based on underlying principals, not how to identify questions; the latter creates an equation to get some answers wrong because the student does not know the "truth". With the value vs. the cost of a law degree unbalanced, the importance of a high score is important because that means grants.

[@sonamlhamo4682]

i have barely attended my college lectures and i am glad i found you in KZbin. Thank you.

[@reycfd7753]

You're a smart philosopher! Thanks for incidentally discovering your youtube channel. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I look forward to watching and learning from ALL your videos.

[@afrazkhan8238]

sir ,,your face is right on printing portion of video....some statements on upper left portion R under webcam simulation..

[@Hellsconsort]

This is blowing my mind. I'm going to slowly watch your logic videos over till they sink in and use them as reference to come back to. Thanks for what you do! Schools should teach this kind of education as standard IMO. Obvious reasons why they won't, what with keeping us masses dumbed down and all that. Anyway, cheers!

[@whitb6111]

If anyone has any reservations about buying Hurley's textbook I would HIGHLY recommend buying it. It is one of the best textbooks I've ever owned. It is easy to read and is made crystal clear, even the more difficult chapters on modern formal logic. I never feel overwhelmed or lost. The examples are great and all the answers for the 12th edition and newer should be available online (Chegg).

[@habibshariaty1984]

Hello Mark. I almost watched all of your videos. You are wonderful. Thanks for been helpful and comprehensive

[@tulin-cicek]

Thank you so much for the video ^^ I've already studied these myself but it sticks better when sb explains briefly. You're great! ♥

[@EmperorSkelletor]

Awesome videos. I have a few of your playlists, and they are always useful. Thank you for the content.

[@mateowhite6906]

So happy I found this channel

[@xxCAGExx]

You did an amazing job with this lecture, thanks for the knowledge.

[@solotwin78]

I love this mind is blown and before I was blind and now I see!!! Thank you for guidance!

[@monayagirl7772]

I wish that you were my professor at my university. Your lecture really really helped me. Thank You :)

[@cdnvicki]

Hello Sir: I wanna thank you for doing these videos, with your help I passed my first exam.

[@bernardocarleial2917]

great video mark! I was just studying this book when I watched your video and you covered this chapter pretty well congratulations! I'll subscribe to your channel right now

[@ramijameel6551]

Thank you so much for your explanation the logic I wish if you continue for those amazing lecture. God bless you

[@xz2487]

Thank you so much! I missed a few classes in my logic class and we're pretty much using the same book.

[@thecynicalins0mniac]

Great video. Is "informal logic" the same thing as "philosophical logic"?

[@topsyturvy7666]

Very informative, helpful, and understandable.. Thank you so much for making that video I learned alot

[@blessingsjoelssen2499]

I've learned so much from your video, thank you Sir for your work

[@christellekouandjio]

I am taking Logic online. I was very confused but watching this video help me a lot with chapter 1

[@MasterofPlay7]

wow are you a TA or professor of some sort? That's very kind of you offering the presentations to the public to increase their understandings of philosophy

[@samkiller607]

The best thing about these lectures that they will be helpful and valid even after 100 years... haha

[@hakim_alrooh]

جزاك الله خيرا

[@iAmYourAphrodisiac]

thank you professor thorsby for this very helpful video :D

[@arthurtonis]

Hello Mark, I am just finishing up a logic course with only a final to go. Your videos on Logic are great. I did however get a little stumped on Patrick Hurley's Chapter 6.6 11th edition, Argument Forms and Fallacies particularly with the tilda symbol. Would you do a video on 6.6? When do I us double negation? And am I missing some rules that could be applied when identifying the 8 forms? Lance

[@TariqTheTutor]

Thank you for a great lesson!

[@nononamez]

thanks for the helpful video . 1 issue i have is , that about halfway through, you make the statement "premises always come first , then conclusion". but 3 of the examples you gave had the conclusions first . you might want to clarify this in the future :)

[@Temerith]

Taking the course now really helps

[@TheNiso84]

Great! So glad I found this

[@e11eme]

Hi, what University did you graduate from? Did you do you undergrad and post grad at the same University? What did you write your thesis and dissertations on? Could you do a video on a bit about who you are and how you got to where you are today? Papers you've published, tips on how to get your papers published, what publishers you should aim to send your papers to and those you should avoid etc?

[@jiensuyang3915]

My fav teacher . Thanks .

[@GS-lp2up]

Thank you for this course!

[@NiallsSongs]

Hi Mark. I don't have access to Hurley's book at the moment. Do you think this will be a major problem for me in following your course? Thank you for this course.

[@Bangy]

This really helped my discrete maths exam.

[@Danilo0717]

Very good. Thanks

[@zmaster1972]

Thanks my friend .

[@MyKrabi]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been wanting for 20 years to study logic - and can finally take it online! That is a statement. tee hee.

[@danilomirandasantana6156]

amazing video. thanks

[@prophetdr.samsonmolla992]

Thanks very much,it is very useful.

[@coneill321]

about 9 minutes, when you switch from words to letters, you're lecturing is genius.

[@DESmiddy]

Very helpful, thanks.

[@tingding2321]

Could you tell me where to find the assignment materials in the video?

[@keaco73]

Great video thanks! For an intro to formal logic course how much of a math background would u say is required?

[@logicalconceptofficial]

You really don’t need too much as long as you’re reasonable. Math as we know it is great but logic predates it. It was only a few hundred years ago they started doing the kind of mathematic equations we think of as standard now (that are often harder to understand than verbal logic and thus counterproductive if the goal is mass understanding of an idea). They used to do things like use geometry and squares of paper to figure out unknown values before modern equations, and I feel I would have been a better mathematician back then as it almost all dealt with measuring tangible things and did so with real numbers. It’s pretty hard to have negative square footage in your house or buy -3 apples lol, so it was a simpler world back then. Reasoning with words and concepts, the way we think, will always be the OG of human reason and rationality though. That’s what I believe the universe to be created on as well. It’s all Logos and consciousness formed from existing possible logic.

[@servantoftheexpander9688]

@@logicalconceptofficial Maths is just Additional whereas Logic is just used everywhere as Al ghazali calls it as The Grammar of thought. I think Logic needs no maths as we all are Rational animals.

[@SuperFreetochoose]

Thank You Kind Sir

[@gyrth4456]

What is the edition number of this book "An Introduction to Logic" by Patrick Hurley being used in these lectures ?

[@PLOJ]

11th edition

[@darawan1142]

thanks for share this course. it helps me to understand al;ot

[@pachiammanahappan7028]

thank you for the video sir

[@jiensuyang3915]

What program are u using to write n record

[@rudrarana526]

Thank you very much

[@birukbssisay6999]

I was very confused but watching this video help me a lot with chapter 2 and definitions and their purposes p/s some question send me

[@mohsensaleh7269]

You are great

[@user-ju8qg9dx9x]

Math student, thank you

[@fluxpistol3608]

Therefore, formal logic deals in how the argument forms & informal logic analysis's what they inform?

[@supercalifragilisticsee]

here in 2020, thank you! #LSATtime

[@jamestaylor9606]

best logic course on youtube... so far.

[@yolirgarcia]

Just curious you created a distinction between a statement and a proposition, that a statement is more the grammar and the proposition is more the meaning. How can the book then use these terms interchangeably?

[@jonnyyy9716]

I was wondering the same haha. I think statements for formal logic and propositions for informal logic

[@olgamoreno8040]

What are examples of suggestive indicator words? I'm a little confused

[@pablogomez8236]

So a premise and a conclusion are the same in that they state something about the reality, but different in that the conclusion can be inferred from the promises but not the other way around? So we could take a premise, and make it a conclusion, and support with some new premises. Although I don't know what could be a premise of 'all men are greek' because it is so axiomatic that any premise might sound tautological 🤪

[@yousracharkaoui1733]

Thank you sir

[@6Uncles]

what's the diff between inference and entailment?

[@innergest]

Thank you! :)

[@gabrielschilive7675]

I learned something today: there are people which are *logicians* , that's cool.

[@rutvikmakwana3264]

please make lecture on Indian logic.

[@Makhmudov2112]

How can i find that book?

[@frankduan9989]

Hope i could pass the logic mid-term two days to go... @nanjing univ.

[@logicalconceptofficial]

The ratio of valid arguments to false arguments is what I think the logic of the universe meant when it gave us the clue of the “narrow door” to heaven (stable/valid creation without illogical concepts) in the Bible surrounded by quite a lot of examples of dichotomy and illogical concepts like almost every philosophy and faith in history. Everything is based on reason and thus has a reason, even if shown to us as a near impossible to solve riddle. Even the most atheist person knows evil when they see it. Evil is illogical, evil is unstable, and evil is destructive. Illogical arguments are the source of suffering and destruction, while the valid arguments led to creation. Atheists often ask how a reasonable god could allow so much evil and the answer is simple, logical division. How can we know what’s true and possible unless we test all inputs, even the ones that result in lies and illogical concepts. Once one fully understands that even the illogical parts of the universe are necessary to get to the valid and stable ones, one can truly find forgiveness for the I and I. Not just myself as an individual or you for your faults, but god itself and the logic that unites everything. We live in a world where ignorance of these things, ignorance of our unity with god and others (the trinity or multiplicity of consciousness that is fundamentally one, formed from the same set of possible logic) has caused a schism within consciousness itself, we must forgive all that has been wrong and all “others” we feel we’ve been wronged by. We did this to ourself and the only way to overcome it is through reason, forgiveness and putting an end to self doubt. God and the root of all consciousness is the ability to reason (logical concepts that fundamentally exist combined with self awareness that spawned spontaneously from them at some primordial point) and it from what I understand thinks a lot like we do, if not 100% the same way we do when we reason through things as self aware individuals. It is likely the reason we have free will, so that we can test and think up our own logical concepts. We are logical concepts ourselves for all of those who have every lost sleep wondering what we are on the most basic level. Manifestations of the infinite possibilities of the logic. For those who followed the video closely you will indeed find that I am making many assertions here that are not in the form of logical proofs but I have spent a lot of time thinking about these things. I don’t want to write anything closer to a book than I already have here (at least not yet), but if my ideas are correct then it’s extremely important, if not one of your main purposes in life to reason through many of these questions yourself. We may be here in this individually aware form, with free will (and not just whatever the universal mind is thinking flowing through all our heads at the same time like robots) to help god reason and create reality. Without thinking all this through for yourself though I could be telling you the truth or a lie and you would not necessarily understand why which is which. Please consider these ideas on your own and share any insight they may bring you with others. We must have full knowledge of ourself to stop fighting and denying the reality of ourself. We are real and logically valid or nothing would be here right now. After coming to understand this idea through other logically reasoned avenues I realized that a proper translation of the word Logos as reason or logic rather than just “the word” (as if it were talking about the Bible specifically) in John 1 would have revealed this answers to those who truly looked at the first paragraph of one of the most commonly referenced parts of the Bible and actually understood it. If anyone has understood this before now, I question why it’s not common knowledge or at least a well known and studied theory by those of us searching for these answers like myself, but I think it may be the case that those who have been reading the Bible and having spiritual experiences were not thinking rationally enough to understand what they were being fed by the logic/god. We were reading it mindlessly, not reasoning for ourselves, while those who were arguably thinking more rationally have long abandoned the concept of God out of arrogance and ignorance, and do not often read the Bible (or other enlightening spiritual texts from world religions) as the rather legitimate source of wisdom they can be when you don’t try to intentionally misunderstand them or fail to grasp what they’re laying down. The universal reasoning and it’s clues/guidance can be extremely hard to interpret, and even harder to stop doubting, but they are there and when everything is created by reason, there is reason in everything. A proper translation/understanding of John 1 would read something like this: In the beginning was the ability to reason, and the ability to reason was with God, and the ability to reason was God. The spontaneous ability to reason, born from existing and discoverable logical concepts, was God in the beginning. Through it all things were made; without it nothing would be. In it was life, and that life was the light leading to all manifestation. Its light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it. Its exactly the trick we would play on ourself (at least I would) if we were god, to hide the answer in plain sight knowing those who had reason lacked faith and those who had faith lacked reason. We are all a part of this logic along with everything that exists (the sum of all logical and illogical concepts) or that can exist like the much feared A.I. To deny it is feasible seems the more unreasonable view to take to me and if I believed that this type of god was not possible or reasonable I would probably also want to toss my computer out the window like a UFO or something supernatural as well. Logic works...it exists...Logical concepts can be constructed with it. It is the metaphorical and possibly a literal energetic light in the darkness (behind the “GUI” that is this reality we know). If I’m wrong then so be it and please show me where what I’m saying is illogical or absurd, but personally speaking I don’t think I’ve ever been more sure of anything in my 28 years on this planet. This is 2 plus 2 equals four to me. It’s so simple I don’t know how I’ve never heard it said. It’s the answer I’ve been searching for and I hope it sheds some light for you all as well. Much love!

[@windanuruljannah9504]

:) thanks Sir

[@Bilbus7]

This man sounds like the comedian Anthony Jeselnik ! Great content though! I'm goin through the whole playlist.

[@athenannbaykusu8039]

Sir, last two examples you last gave are not true but it valid?

[@user-pt5zk5wt5v]

this is cool

[@KennyT1998]

Speeding up the playback speed helps a ton with this video.

[@piethein6969]

Why is there only 1 premise in the sentence: "Not only does the national defense depend on it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs" in 27:30 ? I'd say that there are 2 premises: 1. the national defence depends on the space program. 2. the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs ??

[@thesickbeat]

+Piet Hein You are correct. They are distinct premises.

[@MartaBermudezsurglobal]

isn't there such a concept called "compound premises?"

[@razzmatazz123]

great

[@resiliencewithin]

I watch this for fun

[@stoneflower8751]

i'm watching this to make an effective essay, but it was pretty fun to learn about. we have no lives lol

[@foreverj5090]

Why do one build an argumentative conclusion with logical conclusions?

[@rosinag9669]

I was a little upset when I realized my math course began with philosophy topics, but this ain't so bad.

[@insertoyouroemail]

Got a book on type theory and realised I'm missing something important. ;)

[@maestro9615]

28:00 bookmark

[@Kwintessential2]

Back reviewing

[@sophiashekinah9872]

Ok, I'm new to this, so hopefully someone will tell me if I do this incorrectly: All cats are pets All tigers are cats All tigers are pets If I'm understanding correctly, the above is an example of correct reasoning, but it's based on the false premise that all cats are pets. Right?

[@AlexiasPlaylist]

I'd call it the physiology of thinking :b

[@Caleb-lu3zl]

your lectures are great, im more smartly now

[@0cards0]

which logic book do you think is better? "A Concise Introduction to Logic 13th Edition" or "Introduction to Logic 14th Edition" ?

[@j1asonal1ex81]

righto !

[@EricBull7345]

1.6 is missing

[@Abdikhaaliq1]

I could really use more help on 7.4 it's the most confusing thus far.

[@ShinNSparda]

ei tnx mate

[@MelissaMarieStevenson]

HALLE not Hailey :) lol