8 Rules of Syllogism - Arguments and Validity

[@river8142]

This was super easy to follow! Thank you so much!!

[@PHILOnotes]

Glad to hear that!

[@Jebusite100]

Thank you for explaining the middle term.

[@Itsme-gw7cu]

Thanks for this lesson , I searched many channels but I find your videos more precise and informative .

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you very much for the compliment! :)

[@lennyjoybangalao3190]

Thank you so much for this lesson. Will watch your other videos, too. Very helpful especially for my upcoming exam. Hopefully, I could pass it soon for eligibility 🙏

[@PHILOnotes]

Glad to hear it helps, Lenny. Cheers!

[@payalsingh5307]

Realllyyy great vedio ❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏thanks alllloooottttttt bs thoda thoda Hindi m rehte Kuch Kuch chiz toh Jada Accha rehta but realllllyyyyy this is best channel ever i have seen thankzss alllllloootttt❤️

[@PHILOnotes]

@Payal Singh thanks for leaving an inspiring comment! All the best! :)

[@Syllogist]

Comment-13: Rule «#6»: Example (22:22). Algebraic calculation: x - idiot, y - rational, z - Kurt 1. No idiot is rational (x’y) 2. Kurt is not an idiot (zx’) - - - Calculation: ((x’y)*(zx’))/X = (x’yz)/X = yz = zy 3. (Therefore,) Kurt is rational» - (zy) You are right! Score T:F = 6:7

[@The_mythical_shadysnake7668]

Now i understand better more thank you exams are near .you save my ass not only for the exams but fir ny entire life as I always wanted to learn these

[@adityamisra7702]

Thanks for this explanation. God bless you.

[@PHILOnotes]

You are very welcome

[@Syllogist]

Comment-3: Rule #2: Example 1 (15:15). Algebraic calculation: x - philosopher, y - brilliant, z - terrorist 1. Every philosopher is brilliant (xy) 2. But no terrorist is a philosopher (z’x) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(z’x))/X = (xyz’)/X = yz’ = z’y 3. (Therefore) no terrorist is brilliant (z’y) You are right! Score T:F = 3:0 Comment-4: Rule #2: Example 2 (15:15). Algebraic calculation: x - artists, y - creative, z - weird people 1. All artists are creative (xy) 2. (However,) all artists are weird people (xz) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(xz))/X = (xyz)/X = yz = zy [Yours «3. (Therefore) all weird people are creative» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: There is weird people SO AZ creative (zy) [«There is…SO AS…» - in volume for this 3 syllogism’s notion it’s - right!] This syllogism is not INVALID. INVALID is they interpretation. You are wrong! Score T:F = 3:1

[@Jason-o5s]

Cheer~~the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities.😊

[@charisma8861]

HELPFUL AND USEFUL. THANK YOU VERY MUCHHH 😭😭😭❤️❤️

[@PHILOnotes]

you're welcome, PickMe. we are glad you found our lectures helpful. cheers!

[@cairo4414]

thank you so maam, May i ask for your permission to use this for my class also. Thank you and God bless!

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, cairo 4. Sure, by all means please go ahead and use this video lecture in your class. Best wishes!

[@BWENGYEHASSAN-rj3td]

Good lessons

[@Syllogist]

Comment-7: Rule #3: Example 1 (18:58). Algebraic calculation: x - beans, y - leguminous, z - Mongo seeds 1. All beans are leguminous (xy) 2. Mongo seeds are beans (zx) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(zx))/X = (xyz)/X = yz = zy 3. (Therefore) Mongo seeds are leguminous (zy) You are right! Score T:F = 4:3 Comment-8: Rule «#3»: Example 2 (18:58). Algebraic calculation: x - lawyer, y - studious, z - Marco 1. Some lawyers are not studious (xy’+xy) 2. Marco is a lawyer (zx) - - - Calculation: ((xy’+xy)*(zx))/X = (xy’z+xyz)/X = y’z+yz = z(y’+y) [Yours «3. (Therefore) Marco is not studious» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: Marco CAN AS not studious [or CAN AS studious] (z(y’+y)) - VALID You are wrong! Score T:F = 4:4

[@gmpm]

This is a very informative and clear video, thank you so much.

[@PHILOnotes]

you're welcome, gm pm. we are glad you found this video helpful. best wishes!

[@Jin-dr2nr]

Thank you for this video... It is very informative and useful.

[@tresintelligent]

I believe that the example of rule #7 violates rule number 3. If I'm wrong, can you explain me why?

[@Jebusite100]

You are right, the syllogism is invalid. Poor individuals can be hard-working as well.

[@carlitotoreno1254]

Nice explanation it helps me

[@PHILOnotes]

many thanks Carlito for your generous comments. we are glad you found our videos helpful. cheers!

[@JR-dw9qd]

Great Video!! Helped alot :)

[@bernadethcaste8924]

Thank you sos much I learn it

[@janu9813]

Really helpful one🙏

[@PHILOnotes]

Glad it helps, Jancy. Best wishes!

[@janu9813]

@@PHILOnotes you are great

[@PHILOnotes]

@@janu9813 Many thanks Jancy for your sweet and very inspiring comments! I wish you all the best!

[@francisarengh5913]

well analysed lesson.Thank you.

[@PHILOnotes]

Thanks too, Francis for the generous feedback! All the best!

[@godname4996]

This really help a lot in times of quaratine. You help me to easily understand the lesson . Thank you very much PHIL 0-notes

[@PHILOnotes]

No worries, God name. We are glad to found our videos helpful. Best wishes!

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Great content as always,I will keep watching these series !!! I'm curious what about abductive arguments,you never mention them ??

[@PHILOnotes]

thanks proud Sjw. abductive reasoning is seldom included in categorical logic. but yes, we will take that into consideration. cheers!

[@PHILOnotes]

abductive argument is usually based on a guess or observation, which is very hard to verify. I think that's the reason why most Logic textbooks don't include this topic.

[@jurylaparan9308]

Thanks for sharing sir. God bless

[@PHILOnotes]

no worries, mate. cheers!

[@duamanLoise]

thankyou

[@ps.princemawutorkwametanye9676]

This is really helpful. thanks

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you, Prince. Best wishes!

[@mr.birdie1406]

Wrong! Angelina Jolie is most definitely a heavenly body 🤣 Kidding.. great discussion btw

[@PHILOnotes]

hahaha...thanks Mr. Birdie!

[@Syllogist]

Comment-9: Rule #4: Example 1 (20:14). Algebraic calculations confirm that… x - bodily beans, y - corporeal, z - Plants 1. All bodily beans are corporeal (xy) 2. Plants are bodily beans (zx) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(zx))/X = (xyz)/X = yz = zy 3. (Therefore) Plants are corporeal (zy) You are right! Score T:F = 5:4 Comment-10: Rule «#4»: Example 2 (20:14). Algebraic calculation: x - students, y - lazy, z - Asians 1. Some students are lazy (xy+xy’) 2. (But) some Asians are students (zx+zx’) - - - Calculation: ((xy+xy’)*(zx+zx’))/X = (xyz+xy’z)/X = yz+y’z = z(y’+y) [Yours «3. (Therefore) some Asians are not lazy» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: Asians CAN AS not lazy [or CAN AS lazy] (z(y’+y)) - VALID You are wrong! Score T:F = 5:5

[@dinkdonk4062]

Shout out to year 10 philosophy with Mr. Smith. The goat

[@aneegogoi8914]

Very good video🙏

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you very much

[@Syllogist]

Comment-5: Rule «#2»: Example 3 (17:30). Algebraic calculation: x - lawyer, y - liars, z - Greg 1. No lawyer are liars (x’y) 2. Greg is a lawyer (zx) - - - Calculation: ((x’y)*(zx))/Y = (x’yzx)/Y = x’zx = 0 [Yours «3. Greg is not liar» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. Notion «Greg» NOT CONNECTED WITH notion «liar» (0) You are wrong! Score T:F = 3:2 Comment-6: Rule «#2»: Example 4 (17:30). Algebraic calculation: x - lunatic, y - easily gets irritated, z - insecure teachers 1. Some lunatic easily gets irritated (xy+xy’) 2. (But) some insecure teachers easily get irritated (zy+zy’) - - - Calculation: ((xy+xy’)*(zy+zy’))/Y = (xyz+xy’z)/Y = xz = zx [Yours «3. (Therefore) some insecure teachers easily gets irritated» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: THERE IS insecure teachers WHO easily gets irritated (zx) - VALID You are wrong! Score T:F = 3:3

[@johnafable2129]

hello, can ask for permission to use this presentation for our school project, please... i will give the full credits for this... thank you so much

[@pujarai8202]

Omg! my brain freezed for a moment 🤦 Thank you miss!! I will re-re-repeat again and again to understand better 😭😊

[@PHILOnotes]

Thank you so much for your very inspiring comments, Puja. Cheers!

[@PHILOnotes]

You may view our compilation of video lectures in Categorical Logic here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bl7chGydrd2IhKM

[@PHILOnotes]

You may view our compilation of video lectures in Propositional Logic here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4K8dHqjhsd1eas

[@Syllogist]

Comment-14: Rule «#7»: Example (23:03). Algebraic calculation: x - rich individuals, y - hard-working, z - fisherman 1. All rich individuals are hard-working (xy) 2. (But) some fisherman are hard-working (zy+zy’) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(zy+zy’))/Y = (xyz)/Y = xz = zx [Yours «3. (Therefore) some fisherman are rich individuals» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: There is fisherman are rich individuals (zx) You are wrong! Score T:F = 6:8

[@roychess]

Many people like the format of your presentation. However there are some minor issues with the content. Many examples as presented are just wrong. The explanations to why they are wrong are only the rules you state. The reasons there are RULES are to avoid FALLACIES that you mention! We do not just follow rules. We follow the rules to prevent committing fallacies ourselves! You can't justify an argument as valid or invalid only in context of the rules as you do. That is misleading people here. People should understand if they break any of the rules they commit a fallacy! Each rules is associated with a fallacy. So breaking rules = committing a fallacy & we want to AVOID committing fallacies in reasoning --that IS WHY WE OBEY RULES. Some examples are your Rule 2 example 4. You say VALID in context of rule 2. It is INVALID because it commits a fallacy: Undistributed middle as you wrote it. Rule 7: your example commits a fallacy: undistributed middle but you say it is valid in a context. . . . Another bad example is specifically on your 8 rules of syllogism example. The video says the argument is VALID but the example breaks a previous RULE: A argument with negative premises must have a negative conclusion! The example given is: Some lawyers are professionals. No Criminals are professionals. Therefore Some criminals are lawyers. The argument is INVALID as written! There are also some poorly worded sentences. I take it English is not the first language? Many sentences could have been written better to make the presentation better.

[@bluephoenix.9116]

I appreciate your effort to point it out man. May God bless your soul

[@mohsinhassan4538]

According to rule no.5,if one premise is negative thn the conclusion must also b in negative. But it goes against in rule no.8 where one premise is in negative nd the conclusion is in affirmative.🤔🤔

[@PHILOnotes]

Hi Mohsin, Rule #5 is about "quality", which says "If one premise is affirmative and the other negative, then the conclusion must be negative." Rule #8, on the other hand, is about "quantity", which says "If one premise is particular, then the conclusion must be particular." I hope this helps. Thanks for your comments though.

[@reikasamaendsupwithshousuk2889]

Thank u so much😭

[@PHILOnotes]

you're welcome, Mariadel.

[@دقائقالحقائق-ي6ط]

good job thanks

[@PHILOnotes]

thanks heaps, my friend, for your inspiring comments. cheers!

[@amieroseayessordilla43]

Why it is important to test the validity of syllogism?

[@PHILOnotes]

obviously, to know whether your argument is valid or not, my dear

[@amieroseayessordilla43]

@@PHILOnotes okay thankyou 😊

[@PHILOnotes]

@@amieroseayessordilla43 no worries, Amie Rose. cheers!

[@tulasikatukoju9690]

How last example of rule 8 is valid?

[@PHILOnotes]

Hi Tulasi, please note that we are explaining #8 in that example. The example might be invalid in other rules.

[@markportnoy6290]

At 15:04, isn't weird people universal in the second sentence? All artists. That's not particular.

[@ач1р]

Inductive and deductive arguments are no longer defined in terms of particular/specific and universal/general.

[@sanyidupla8830]

There can be one premise and conclusion

[@mileskeller5244]

Somebody help me I dont see how "mortal" in the sentence Socrates is mortal is the predicate? I thought the predicate had to be the verb?

[@PHILOnotes]

The verb in a categorical statement is the linking verb, usually "is" or "are". The phrase that follows the linking verb (copula) is the predicate term.

[@mileskeller5244]

@@PHILOnotes thank you sir, greatly appreciated

[@rakeshtiwari802]

the conclusion of example in 8 rule is contradicting 7 rule as in latter if any premises is negative then conclusion must negative and in earlier if any premise is particular conclusion must be particular .8 rule says if any premise is particular then conclusion must be particular .but what if one premise is particular and other is negative then conclusion must be particular negative ,but example in 7 rule as well in 8 rule are against it . plz clear it.....

[@PHILOnotes]

The "psrticular" has something to do with "Quantiy", while "negative" has something to do with "QUALITY". please don'r collaose the two. There is no rule that talks about particular premise and negative conclusion.

[@Syllogist]

А Вы в курсе, что уже разработана (аналогичная менделеевской) таблица для ЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЭЛЕМЕНТОВ? (см. 07-04. ПЕРИОДИЧЕСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЭЛЕМЕНТОВ (ПСЛЭ): kzbin.info/www/bejne/iWK8eamPetGYqtE ) и составлен список из 32-х типов суждений, включающих два понятия (две логических переменных)? (07-05. ПОЛНАЯ СИСТЕМА СУЖДЕНИЙ СИЛЛОГИСТИКИ ПСЛО-2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4DQm3SqdrOCrLM ) А тут - о совместимости понятий: 06-09. АЛГЕБРАИЧЕСКИЙ РАСЧЁТ СИЛЛОГИЗМОВ - ЭТО ПРОСТО! (суждения, кванторы, модусы): kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2mkZHd_btaIj7s

[@bug2840]

why did jim kill jack?

[@PHILOnotes]

Because he is annoying! ;-)

[@CultofThings]

11:00 Ted Kaszynski would disagree

[@turupofficial4125]

2021❤who still watching ❤

[@PHILOnotes]

everyone who studies Logic

[@turupofficial4125]

Sir make it alot of Quizzes of you can for falancy

[@Syllogist]

SO FAR ABSOLUTLY ANY SYLLOGISM CAN CALCULATE AS ALGEBRAIC FORM… I saw some mistakes into this video-clip… Comment-1: Rule #1: Example 1 (11:11). Mistake in syllogism about (11:11) «stars» is absolute obviously - 4 notions Instead 3 (double interpretation word «stars»). There for - Into this syllogism you are right! Score True:False (T:F) = 1:0 Comment-2: Rule #1: Example 2 (11:11). Algebraic calculation: x - police officer, y - brave, z - Mike 1. Every police officer is brave (xy) 2. Mike is police officer (zx) - - - Calculation: ((xy)*(zx))/X = (xyz)/X = yz = zy 3. (Therefore) Mike is brave (zy) You are right! Score T:F = 2:0

[@Syllogist]

Comment-15: Rule «#8»: Example (23:52). Algebraic calculation: x - lawyers y - professionals, z - criminals 1. Some lawyers are professionals (xy+xy’) 2. (But) no criminals are professionals (z’y) - - - Calculation: ((xy+xy’)*(z’y))/Y = (xyz’)/Y = xz’ = z’x [Yours «3. (Therefor) some criminals are lawyers» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: There is no criminals are lawyers (z’x) You are wrong! COMMON SCORE T:F = 6:9 IN ALL: SIX SYLLOGISMS WAS RIGHT and NINE SYLLOGISMS - IS LIE! Sorry, but this is only typical logic algebra. :-)

[@ConvergingPerspectives]

Some of your examples make no sense even when valid within the 8 rules of logical syllogism. If you are applying these rules consistently to all your examples, then these 8 rules don't work to disprove illogical statements.

[@Syllogist]

Comment-11: Rule «#5»: Example 1 (21:30). Algebraic calculation: x - Filipinos, y - fiesta lovers, z - Diego 1. Some Filipinos are fiesta lovers (xy+xy’) 2. Diego is not Filipino (zx’) - - - Calculation: ((xy+xy’)*(zx’))/X = (xyzx’+xy’zx’)/X = 0/X = 0 [Yours «3. (Therefore) Diego is not fiesta lovers» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: Notion «Diego» NOT CONNECTED WITH notion «fiesta lovers» (0) You are wrong! Score T:F = 5:6 Comment-12: Rule «#5»: Example 2 (21:30). Algebraic calculation: x - students, y - cheaters, z - lazy 1. Some students are cheaters (xy+xy’) 2. (But) some students are not lazy (xz’+xz) - - - Calc: ((xy+xy’)*(xz’+xz))/X = (xyz’+xyz+xy’z’+xy’z)/X = yz’+yz+y’z’+y’z = 1 [Yours «3. (Therefore) some cheaters are lazy» - INVALID CONCLUSION] 3. RIGHT: Notion «students» FULL CONNECTED WITH notion «lazy» (1 - possible all variants) You are wrong! Score T:F = 5:7

[@user-vg8ox3he1i]

How is Example 4 valid? Set A does an action. Set B does an action. Some of Set B are in Set A? That doesn't follow. The major premise is NOT universal, it's an affirmative of a predicate and so it is particular. Same with the minor term it is particular. It is possible that some insecure teachers are lunatics. It is also possible they are not. You haven't proven that there is any relationship between Set A and Set B. I think it is only valid with respect to Rule 2 but it is not valid overall.

[@PHILOnotes]

will do that soon

[@96rvn]

this would be my cause of death 💀💀

[@vinren3893]

schools love to teach us dumb shit

[@PHILOnotes]

ok