A Crash Course in Formal Logic Pt 4c Fallacies of Weak Induction

[@marianebethapa8802]

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

[@maydelenaquino705]

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

[@eulaloumoronabombales4501]

Done watching, Maam Joy Cerjulas. Thank you for this video, PhilHelper!.

[@marylilmila8848]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thankyou for this video, Philhelper!

[@angelinerobles4249]

Done watching, Mam Joy P. Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper!.

[@tambovlogs5406]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales , Thanks for this video, Philhelper.

[@maryjanesanjose5197]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!🙂

[@bryandominicortega6620]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@jomararana1418]

Dine watching Maam Joy Cerujales thankyou for this video, Philhelper!

[@ramirezailyn7908]

Done watching @Ma'am Joy Cerujales and thanks for this video, Philhelper...

[@honeylynsaculo1716]

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

[@sharonbarbastro5376]

Done watching,Mam Joy Cerujales.Thank u for this video,Philhelper.

[@marygracetagun520]

Done watching, Maam joy Cerjuales, Thankyou for this video. Philhelper !

[@jenniferbabila6956]

Done watching for this Video po Ma'am Joy Cerujales! Thank you PhilHelper!

[@beselceles1620]

"done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@lizahosana7511]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!😁

[@bleatrisnean]

These videoes are so great and helpful. Were did you go?

[@carenbrondo3627]

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

[@blesslydelovino7129]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thankyou for this video, Philhelper

[@buenaventejohnchristopherc1089]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhiHelper.

[@dynaaprilfrias3338]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@sheilamaepatlingrao5757]

Done watching maam joy cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper.

[@kylamaebaynas5849]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper! :)

[@tambovlogs5406]

👌

[@Andrea-mn2sw]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper

[@PhilHelper]

You're welcome sir. There will be plenty more on the way, covering logic and other topics.

[@PhilHelper]

I lean libertarian myself. On that note, I also think that the only hope for a free, democratic society is to put 4 years of critical thinking into the high school curriculum. After all, what individual would want to be at the mercy of voters who can't process information objectively? So I definitely see logic and politics as vitally connected.

I'm really enjoying these videos. Thanks for putting them out there. Listen, I'm just tossing stuff out there, thinking out loud- I'd appreciate if anyone sees where I'm going askew, that they'd help get me on the right track. Thanks. I'm wondering about the appeal to qualified authority- Lacking the expertise ourselves to ascertain whether a certain (let's say) scientist's claims are true or not, we must appeal to the peer reviews of other scientists in the field. At first blush, this seemed to me to be an ad-populum appeal, but really it's the best we can do. Also, in the usual case of ad-populum, the opinion of the populous at large is not considered to be one that is very informed, making the ad-populum appeal irrational. But in the case of a scientist's peers and colleagues, we have very qualified individuals who do actual testing and rigorous examinations, which in the former case, doesn't happen. Being that we have no expertise, we really are in a position of complete dependence of what the 'experts' say. You could see how dangerous of a position that puts people in who lack the knowledge. It's a powerless and dependent position. We have to rely on the possibility of there being enough people of integrity sufficient to get truth out. We all know how corruptible people are. This seems to bring back into importance establishing the character of a person. In such a case, it is not ad-hominem to call a liar a liar if there is evidence of it in the past. While the past has nothing technically to do with any particular argument at the time, being we are in such a position of complete dependence on a small group of 'experts', integrity becomes a lot more crucial. Outside of being able to verify claims, which we cannot because we lack the particular expertise, we must rely on a read of the person's character, biases, relationships, and reviews by his qualified peers. But if the group is small enough, who's to say they're on the up and up? Another thing, if so few are knowledgeable in this particular scientific niche, then who's to say who is qualified? There may be only 2 or 3 people in the world able to make that determination. So right away we see the dangers of exclusivity of knowledge. Perhaps it's not intentionally exclusive, but the abstruse nature of the specific science makes it so. All our logic and reason can't help us if we are spoon fed information by a handful of 'experts' who are determined to withhold the truth. There would be no way to verify. So that would mean whatever it is this group of experts claims, we would all run around regurgitating it as if it were truth, with no way to possibly know that we were spreading untruths. I'm beginning to see why they say knowledge is power. Yeah. Sure enough. Shit- well if knowledge is power, then exclusive knowledge is nearly limitless power to control the thoughts and opinions of others. Shades of Edward Bernays...

[@elghunk]

I do not think it is often that we ordinary people debate something that only 2-3 people are experts at? Is there such a field of knowledge?

[@elghunk]

Not sure if we can do it differently. I suppose we all could vote on the internet if we should bomb some country or not. I have heard about "the Black Brant scare", so I understand this is something to worry about.

[@PhilHelper]

Thanks for commenting. Yeah, a lot of good arguments make appeals to authority. It is amazing, if you think about it, how much of our reasoning consists in appeals to authority. Consider all of history for example. How would we know anything about history with appeal to the witnesses? Fallacies only occur when the witness or authority is unqualified. And there is no exact rule for figuring out what qualifications are necessary. You have to go on a case by case basis. Scientists are generally a good source. But if a field or topic is controversial or if a scientist speaks outside of the consensus of their peers then fallacies might still occur.

PhilHelper Thanks for your comment as well. Yes. There are many fears in that area. You make excellent points too, about history- If I have to quote Napoleon- History is lies agreed upon... But to your point.... How the F do I know he actually said that? Here I am quoting a man I can never meet as if it is a stone-cold fact he said that. I have no idea. Suppose I hear a person say a thing and I want to preserve it for posterity. Here I am an eyewitness, whose testimony is better than anyone's... But how the F is posterity to believe me?? Just because I wrote something down doesn't mean its true or it happened, necessarily.e But, one thing we CAN do is take a quote like that, (Napoleon's) and, irrespective of who said it, if it is true, we can tout it. To whom we attribute it is of no consequence. I happen to be a non-believer- But there are some things that Jesus is supposed to have said that I generally tend to agree with. Now, does it matter to me if Jesus said it, or if Socrates said it, or if the guy writing a fiction just made it up? I say no. What matters is the veracity of the claim, not who is supposed to have claimed it. But if we go back to what we were talking about, specifically, technical expertise available to only a few, then we really are at a loss of independently verifying whether or not a thing be true. Awesome. I really love the input. thanks.

Stian Olsnes We really are in a fix in that regard. But you know what? If that's the way it is, then that's the reality we must live in. We can tell ourselves that what we think we know we are sure of, but that's not reflective of reality. It's unsettling, but what options do we have? Suppose a pharmaceutical company says they have just detected a new strain of some virus that can only be detected with the latest equipment, which is patented under proprietary copyrights. Let's say that this one company goes through the FDA (which is corrupt as the day is long) and gets permission to be the sole provider of vaccines for this virus that only they can detect... Then they get an exclusive on all the revenue, mandated by the government. How would th populous be able to tell 1 if it really is necessary? 2 if the virus is as dangerous as advertised? 3 if this vaccine will work? 4 will it have side effects?? I mean, that is just an imaginary case, but it's not really far from reality. Remember swine flu? Yep. they sold a lot of vaccines and it seemed like it was only hype... But again, to the point- How the F would we know one way or the other? We must defer to "authority".

[@TheGuzmandaniel]

I love the material, but I think you could be more effective if you spoke a bit slower, and moved forward slower. It seems that you are trying to rush through the material

[@marclawson6144]

C'mon, Garfield, when were adults locked up simply for having the mind of a child? Nazi Germany? Odd cartoon.

[@marclawson6144]

Your absence of evidence example is a poor choice. If the Bible makes a claim and there is an absence of evidence to support it, it is more logical to doubt the claim than to believe it as the Bible is an unqualified authority of history and is fraught with numerous egregious historical fallacies. If belief in a biblical claim is faith based that's ok by me but it's still the antithesis of logical thinking.

[@marclawson6144]

***** I agree that ignorance is neither proof nor disproof of a claim; however, I would not have commented if it were simply presented as such. The whole purpose of my comment is that the Bible is one of the worst sources of information in all of human history as much of it is proven by historians to be forged, with numerous major contradictions between the gospels, and more differences between the diferent copies of the texts than there are in fact words in the Bible. This is from professor and chair of Biblical Studies at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Bart D. Ehrman's several books. My point is that of all texts, the Bible is one of the worst choices to illustrate this lesson.

[@maryfranceyulo6049]

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

[@chrizzamaeabuque2818]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, thanks for this video PhilHelper!

[@sherlynnasi3798]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@avilaabegail661]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@analaraavengoza1816]

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

[@luisamariesanchez8734]

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

[@rosalynpadayao5488]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

[@aprilrosealmazar450]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@jisetteclairecordial9407]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@nicolebermeo1960]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@rannaaanana]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@benefecasseybriones6495]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thanks for this video, PhilHelper!

[@marissacervantes3582]

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

[@tambovlogs5406]

👌

[@angelanabor3651]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"