An Overview of Logic

Рет қаралды 52,515

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 54

@DimitriDesormeau 3 ай бұрын

If I could heart this video, I would. You not only explained this topic better then the sum total of all my professors, but you did so in an extremely intriguing manner. You are a blessing for philosophy. Please do not stop teaching

@rezamahan7109 Жыл бұрын

I tried hard to imagine how you could’ve explained these concepts clearer, no success! Thank you

@RickSanchez-od2uf 3 жыл бұрын

I can tell how smart you are by the way you use the most precise language available to express your ideas.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын

I don't know about smart, but I HAVE been teaching this stuff for almost 30 years, so it's probably really just practice! :-) Seriously though, thanks for watching and I hope you find these videos helpful.

@adaptercrash Жыл бұрын

When they say philosophy is impractical they mean logic, which is now computer science, there's something wrong with it they use to study it extensively

@punkpendulums 2 жыл бұрын

03:34 formal, morphology 04:08 informal, induction, quality/quantity evidence 08:16 never going to achieve certainty, degree of probability 09:15 deduction 11:35 propositional logic 15:24 history of logic

@Zen-lz1hc 2 жыл бұрын

Thank You for the overview. That was exactly what I was looking for. Many Thanks!

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

I'm so glad you found this brief overview helpful. There's so much more to learn, so keep learning!!!!

@loitfm720 2 жыл бұрын

This might be the best example of how to produce a comprehensive overview. Thanks for sharing.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

That's very kind of you. Thanks for watching and commenting!

@hombrepobre9646 Жыл бұрын

you are a very good and talented teacher, your student must be amongst the best in the world because they have you.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

You are very kind.

@belengaz3034 Жыл бұрын

The logic notably show itself in debates, especially in a philosophical or mathematical debate. That's why this topic is so cricual thanks for video.

@JacquelineWolf-vi4zu Жыл бұрын

Thank you. I am so happy that you made these lectures available.

@wackmane2561 2 жыл бұрын

Can learning logic help with the improvement of decision making? & if so what are the best books or videos to watch. I can’t afford college.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

The short answer is yes. There are lots of videos out there that would be helpful. The ones I've posted are from the intro courses I teach and are really basic. The text I use is, "A Concise Introduction to Logic," by Patrick Hurley, but there are many others. And, there's no need to buy a new edition; just find yourself a cheap used one and read through it. The most important thing is adopt a critical (in the academic sense) point of view in as much of your life as possible. It can begin as simply as asking yourself, "why do I believe X," or "what kind of evidence do I have for believing Y," and "Is this good evidence that I've found?" Hang in there!

@marikeengel Жыл бұрын

Love your lectures! Thank you

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

I'm so glad you found the video helpful!

@dm_grant 2 жыл бұрын

Love this video! Series sounds very promising!

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching. I hope you find the videos helpful.

@realrogers890 2 жыл бұрын

This is so interesting☑️... Please keep it up mate... I support your channel

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks, Real Rogers! As I'm still teaching full time, I don't have the kind of time I'd like to be able to make all the videos I'd like, but I will try to keep making them as time comes available. Thanks for watching!

@James-ll3jb 5 ай бұрын

(2:22ff.) The idea that one cannot know why arguments fail without first knowing what arguments are is wrongheaded, though it does seem inescapable 'logically'. If someone tells me they can argue with success that the sight of wet pavement immediately outside my window means it must have recently rained, I can respond by refuting the claim or agreeing with it without consideration of the meaning of argumentation. I would discern the cause of the wet pavement, notwithstanding any search for the validity of an argument regarding same, and would not even have to or need to know if anything resembling what we would normally call an "argument" is actually going on in this, my ascertainment of the actual cause. Thus I would not need to know what an argument is, to know if an argument e.g. "the wet pavement was not caused by rain but by a garden hose" is true or not: I know the 'argument' is a success or not BEFORE I even know the situation as an argument, or therefore what even an 'argument' is...

@ArvinTR-tx1ew Ай бұрын

Logical absolutists self assumed that their formal logic was "the rule of correct thought" and not just "a way to represent an argument in formal form subjective to a certain known formal axiomatic system", but they never proved us formalists that their definition of logic wasn't self-referential; yet they deny that all the roads eventually lead [back] to meta logic which is inevitably informal.

@ArvinTR-tx1ew Ай бұрын

In addition to that, frankly enough, parties that are involved in a debate rarely, almost never, declare the exact logical systems they are bringing their arguments in (except probably philosophy academia); as if entire debates human form are declared in a unknown undeclared logical system that undermines thinking of a caring and unbiased human, for example in any debate i can say "this is "generalizing property of subset to superset fallacy"" without first choosing what formal axiomatic system that entire debate was supposed to be provided in, as if this logical fact is an un-assumed but implicitly all encapsulating rule of logic. But hey, logical absolutists dont want their monopoly on concept of "correct thinking" questioned.

@James-ll3jb Ай бұрын

@@ArvinTR-tx1ew i know....

@James-ll3jb Ай бұрын

@@ArvinTR-tx1ew . Have you ever read "The Rebel" by Camus?

@iisunya 16 күн бұрын

Thanks

@wisdomseeker3937 Жыл бұрын

Silly question...but how would you define 'inference' or warrant as in Toulmin's model.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

Hi Wisdom Seeker! Thanks for watching and for your question. I don't think it's a silly question at all. Years ago I taught a series of classes in "Critical Thinking" using the Toulmin text, and I have to admit I always found his explanation of "warrant" confusing. I try to approach it in a very different way. I think of an inference as a unique (i.e., logical or rational) connection between ideas (or statements/propositions). A clear model of this is "implication": if A implies B, and if B implies C, then A implies C. The inference is the connection we comprehend between the premise(s) and conclusion(s). Inferences exist in both inductive and deductive reasoning and are governed by the rules of the various "games" within each. This brings us to warrants. An inference can be warranted or unwarranted based on the rules governing the logical system in which it exists. In a predictive inductive argument, for example, the inference is warranted by the amount, kind, and clarity of the evidence contained in the premises. So my prediction that the sun will rise in the morning is based on my past observations and the observations of others, etc. The more evidence I have, the more warranted the inference is. (In deduction, inferences are warranted by the explicitly defined rules of the system.) So, I don't think of "warrant" as a thing, but rather a description or judgement ABOUT an inference. There's so much more to be said, but I hope that helps a little. All the best!

@CharlieHill_26 Жыл бұрын

Haha no way, I’m your exact 10,000th subscriber!! Congrats :) I double checked by unsubscribing and it went back down to 9.99k and I screen recorded, that’s cool.

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

WOW! Thank you @CharlieHill for being number 10,000!!!!

@ardiyantopanggeso108 Жыл бұрын

Thank You

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

I'm so glad you found the video helpful.

@Savy0492 Жыл бұрын

thankyou so much

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Жыл бұрын

You are very welcome.

@asaasas 6 ай бұрын

thanks

@RBN181 5 ай бұрын

🙏🙏

@morleyadama1869 7 ай бұрын

Logic is fun

@syedaleemuddin6804 2 жыл бұрын

I am a new pigeon in this subject. What I can tell you is that logic and philosophy and rational arguments can be everything but God. Am I right??

@ALittleBitofPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

Hi Syed! Thanks for watching. Not sure I fully grasp your question (perhaps it's meant to be rhetorical), but I guess I'd say, nothing can be anything other than itself. All the best!