An Overview of Medieval Logic

Having covered medieval philosophy, let's also investigate the status of logic at this time. Some of the figures we discussed, like Abelard and Boethius, made contributions to logic that are worth discussing in some detail. Let's get a closer look!
Script by Luca Igansi
Watch the whole Philosophy/Logic playlist: bit.ly/ProfDavePhilo
Psychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePsych
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMath
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Biology/Genetics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveAnatPhys
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiopsych
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePharma
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDaveHistoryDrugs
Geology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGeo
EMAIL► [e-mail]
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT

[@antoniomoreira5921]

Not sure it's the right niche (I know Dave is against the general concept) but if anyone's interested in actual Medieval Catholic Tradition (in the etymological sense of the word), I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt's videos series. The content is savage and not easy to consume but it blows your mind when you finally get to the point of it. And the guy is a PhD in Medieval history, so you can stick to some quality

[@user-hn1yh5cn1u]

or you could just go to a catholic church, many of their medieval doctrines are sill being taught today

[@Gomer._.]

Is it one of the playlists? what is it called?

[@ordinaryrat]

@@FUTURENOBODY2 Lol. Just because you dislike Catholicism doesn't mean this is true at all.

[@ordinaryrat]

@@user-hn1yh5cn1u Or you could actually go to a Catholic Church lol. You clearly have really never been to one

[@C3Corvette1982]

@@FUTURENOBODY2 What do you even mean? What specific things are "useless"? Seems like you just don't like Catholics. They're history videos my guy, and Catholics have contributed notably to philosophy and history.

[@yourweirdplant]

Man, the Medieval were crazy times. I once time travelled back to it to see a homeless dude in knight armor fighting a literal knight on fire. It was pretty weird, the fire knight guy changed from a sword to a spear before casting fireballs. The whole scene looked pretty dark and damp too. Weird sun there.

[@yourweirdplant]

(before y'all yell at me this is a reference to dark souls 3)

[@rythofthefourthhouse7104]

You know this reminds me of the time I time traveled back in time to Japan where I met a handicapped fellow dressed in orange, he seemed nice enough, though he didn’t talk much

[@qzh00k]

It was Don Quixote doing all that? He was a badass

[@matthewcooper7166]

It's great how you can help me understand concepts in 3 minutes that my professor can't do in 3 hours. Thanks Dave. Everyone should share a little of same and click on his advertisements.

[@PinkBeard9127]

It is so awesome to see how much we have accomplished as a species and our way of logic changed.

[@jamiegallier2106]

Another complicated subject broken down in a way almost anyone can understand. I really appreciate these videos.

[@angel8fingers]

After watching the Tour debate this morning, it was nice to see a tutorial!

[@ivoryas1696]

@angel8fingers Heh. Nice one!

[@tomhunt354]

If the woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is made of wood.

[@MisterItchy]

You comment thief!

[@owenswabi]

That’s a fair cop

[@entropy404]

Pretty interesting, haven't really been too deep into philosophy, but these videos got me rather interested!

[@mattflores8911]

Great video professor Dave! A bit off topic but I was wondering if you considered polymers as a prospective topic to make a series on in the future?

[@DoctorOnkelap]

Can you imagine how history would have unfolded if Aristotle had paid more attention to fallacies...

[@Rodgerdodger66]

Great video, but as a couple of others have noted, the adjective "Aristotelian" is pronounced "a-RIS-to-TEEL-yan", not "A-ris-TOT-el-EE-an".

[@Rodgerdodger66]

Also "parsimony" is stressed on the first syllable, not the second.

[@Azrael__]

Take me back 😭🙏

[@michaelcullen5308]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is there a through line from Ancient Greek logic, to logic circuits in computers?

[@qzh00k]

Computers work on words and instruction sets. The core of that is Boolean or base2 math but the larger part of that is the computer chips instruction set and they are very unique. Computers use words and bitwise checks are a part of that. I know this may not have helped but there are a million miles of Google searches in these few words. Good question though.

[@Malicious2013]

I see where the line of thought comes from, and in a way, it seems that way. Transistor gates consist of what seem like strings of logic questions. If this is true, then do this, right? The problem is that transistors don't actually ask questions. All they do is efficiently take inputs and calculate outputs. The gates are labeled as "logic gates" and talked about as though they perform logic, but they're merely an absurdly complicated version of previously used, basic calculation devices. That said, our brains are arguably just incredibly complicated versions of computers, so in a very, very basic sense, logic gates in computers resemble logical concepts in their most basic form. If this A and B both happen, then C will be the output. We don't yet understand consciousness to any comprehensive degree, so it is hard to say for certain that we operate on the same principles. It does appear that way sometimes, though. A fun, simple demonstration for a logic gate can be found on KZbin. The idea is that if inputs meet certain criteria, they'll activate the gate and produce an output. The demonstration uses water, the quantity of which is determined by the input number. It's rather fascinating. The short answer is... it depends, but generally, I don't think so.

[@qzh00k]

@@Malicious2013 good analogy, though sometimes the 0 or 1 is not clearly defined or trusted, which in a digital world can be hard to verify or understand. Who set that bit.

[@Malicious2013]

@@qzh00k What do you mean the 1s and 0s can't be trusted? They've never broken my trust. Thems some honest binary code.

[@vylbird8014]

Actually, yes - but via the mathematician George Boole, who formalised logical concepts into Boolean algebra which forms the foundation of all digital electrical engineering and computing.

[@Nanook128]

5:48 I don't think this premise is false, it just requires proper understanding of the word lost. To lose something, one must possess it in the first place. The conclusion drawn from the premise does not follow though, because it assumes the subject has had the horns to lose in the first place.

[@veto_5762]

It is still a fallacy since you can never lose something you don't have. The phrasing states that you still have what you haven't lose but it forgets that you can't lose something you don't have Is like saying "I've never lost a million dollars, therefore I must have a million dollars", the first doesn't make the second true

[@glennpearson9348]

I misread the title of this episode as, "An Overview of Flat Earth Logic." Then, I actually watched it and realized that Thomas Aquinas, et. al., were WAY ahead of Flat Earther logic. Silly me.

[@MisterItchy]

And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

[@notamoron2246]

This new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[@owenswabi]

*grunts*

[@jose.montojah]

Seems _Legitus_

[@DenisLoubet]

I focused on your pronunciation of Aristotelian to the exclusion of the rest of the video. I apologise.

[@chibinyra]

Good Morning! =o)

[@davibro]

Question: What is your position on universals and abstracta? Are you a nominalist, conceptualist, or realist? I would love to hear your insight on this Dave.

[@charliedoyle7824]

I'm a universal abstract nominalist, with occasional conceptual realism and a heavy dose of pseudo-vegetarian nonsensica thrown in on most weekends. How 'bout you?

[@qzh00k]

Universals may need to be greased, check your owners manual as catastrophic failures for it are never good. Hope that helped.

[@charliedoyle7824]

@@qzh00k my universal squeaks as I move along. I probably should consult an abstract realist about it.

[@qzh00k]

@@charliedoyle7824 check your abstracta, there should be a dipstick for it.

[@Zayza12332]

I don't even know what half of this stuff means but I agree 🙂

[@indigenous7046]

Thanks for the headache.

[@mossychops]

PAPAL ELECTION DECREE (1059) Golden Dawn Vs #PKK ?

[@undine8750]

Why were you in an aorta

[@mooseitself]

I kinda hate ancient philosophy. It's practically just thinking about words until you have an existential crisis and then solve it by realizing that words aren't even real.

[@mathewwillenbrink142]

A -ris -toe-tee-lee-an

[@mazin16091969]

[@xanv8051]

So can I study necromancy or not 🚫

[@rubemartur8239]

You can Study medicine. There ARE lots of corpses for dissecation.

[@Worthless-one]

I'm a worthless idiot. Can someone please explain why "whatever you have not lost, you still have" is NOT true?

[@manifatzigula]

Because things that you never even owned are also things you have and cannot lose

[@Worthless-one]

@@manifatzigula follow up question a) how is that even possible? Follow up question b) if ownership is really just what it comes down to. What about "possession is 9/10ths of the law"? Follow up question c) how can you have anything that you CAN'T lose? (Is that even what this is referring to?) (You can even lose your mind and life) Edit: unless you're saying that all possessions belong to everyone? In which case, why do we have the concept of 'stealing'?

[@tamastasi428]

But i do not possess the hings i never even had, by definition of the word have... then why do i "have them", as you Say.

[@glennpearson9348]

The question itself begins with an asserted false dichotomy. It's like asking the question, "Have stopped beating your wife yet?" The question contains an assumption. Then, it offers only one choice or its opposite in response, when the response to the question actually requires more subtlety and nuance than the phrasing of the question allows. Google "False Dichotomy Fallacy," or "Either-Or Fallacy."

[@charliedoyle7824]

As a worthless idiot, you can't lose anything, because you have nothing and are nothing by definition. Therefore, if you lose something, you had to have gained it in the past, negating the eternal fact of you being a worthless idiot.

[@donchristie420]

Wa el

[@waelfadlallah8939]

Ya MAN 😊

[@user-ee7bz3ip2b]

Medieval Logic. Witches burn. Wood burns. Wood floats. Ducks float. Therefore if a woman weighs the same as a duck, she is a witch. 🤔

[@wrjtung3456]

Shut you dumbass up Witch burning only happened after the Black Death

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

What is the actual point of doing philosophy? Hasn’t science replaced and made philosophy effectively useless? It seems to be a bit of a waste of time in the modern scientific day

[@Titancameraman64]

Philosophy is about morals nowadays you might support abortion but someone else might not you don't support killing babies but someone might think what is the difference between a fetus 9 months old and a 2 day old infant

[@Opposite271]

Useful for what? Science ability to be truth-tracking is debated in the philosophy of science. It is not clear to which degree scientific theorizing actually contributes to technological progress. Are new technological inventions more based on the newest iteration of scientific theories or alternatively on trial and error plus past technological understanding. Furthermore the memory skeptic might argue that we don’t know if scientific theories do even predict future observations since it could be that our memory is unreliable. It is not at all obvious that science is in any sense useful. But maybe it is useful and maybe there are even good reasons to think so. To determine this is the job of Philosophy.

[@HomelessShoe]

Kinda silly to think science is a replacement of philosophy. You can't compare apples with oranges. Philosophy is as important as Psychology and many other disciplines. All has their own place, their own uses. You can't replace a hammer with a saw or visa versa.

[@diarmuidkuhle8181]

'Natural philosopher' used to be the word for those people we now call scientists. Anytime human beings THINK consciously with the aim of finding out truths about any aspect of existence, they are technically philosophising.

[@GrandDawggy]

=/=

[@celerun]

Dave, I'm wondering this genuinely and I have a proposition for you. Are you one of those people who can shuffle through a book and then just.. Know what it said? English isn't my first language, not sure what it's called in your language but in Danish it's called "Klæbehjerne" or "sticky brain". If you are, please, make a video explaining how that all works? I don't get it. I barely remember what I ate two nights ago and here you are spitting out content about the most comprehensive heavy data day in day out. I just. I don't understand. Help me understand! :D

[@Titancameraman64]

Reading it's called reading

[@rstevewarmorycom]

DAVE! Ay RIS toh TEE lee un is the proper pronunciation

[@diarmuidkuhle8181]

'Aristotle' is the anglicised version of his name, and is how he's known to English speakers. Most languages do this with foreign personal names to a greater or lesser extent.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@@diarmuidkuhle8181 No, Aristotle is correct, but Aristotelean, as in Aristotelean Logic is what I corrected Dave's pronunciation about!