Critical Thinking #2: Valid & Sound Arguments

[@LossOfEternal]

A critical thinking series on one of the channels least likely to have an audience that needs it. Somebody please put these video links in the comments sections of Fox News, Alex Jones, TYT and Jimmy Dore show.

[@nidavelliir]

Are you seriously comparing Dore to Alex Jones?

[@LossOfEternal]

David is independent now. This show left the TYT network years ago. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2PFmIaImZ6fj5o And Jordan Chariton was fired from TYT last year. Your knowledge of TYT is very suspect. You seem to be unaware of many things that someone that actually hates that channel is well aware of. TYT is very comparable to Fox News. Both channels are filled with ideologues that twist the facts to fit their agenda and ignore stories that would refute their preconceived notions. I was subscribed to TYT for nearly a decade. I've seen Jimmy Dore spit on Alex Jones' face and not lose his job afterwards. I've seen the show sell out to AJ+. I've seen Cenk purposefully misrepresent Sam Harris on multiple occasions. I've seen Cenk and Ana have mental breakdowns when people disagree with them. That channel is not what you think it is. I suggest you stay unsubscribed from them.

[@ihartevil]

sorry jimmy dore does that unlike david pakman and the others jimmy actually has videos where he opened up dictionaries and read from them alex jones doesnt even believe in the insanity he spews as david has told us this is called reading the dictionary the way jimmy does instead of making up your own definitions

[@MiqelDotCom]

^ just because Jimmy Dore read from a dictionary on his show does not imply he used the information in a valid and sound manner. I can't even watch his show because it's fallacy after fallacy, and the 2 people that are his seeming co-hosts contribute nothing of substance and appear more like sycophants. It's just a weird scene all around.

[@Tenchigumi]

@@MiqelDotCom Yeah, there's actually a term for that: the "Appeal to Definition" fallacy. Critical thinking requires broader context that dictionaries can't always provide. In addition, definitions can (and do) change repeatedly over time, and words often have multiple definitions with entirely different applications (see: "erection"). It's one of the more ironic things I see in comments and posts: when someone quotes a dictionary as an authority in a debate, there's a fair chance they don't actually have a comprehensive understanding of the word in question.

[@GBart]

I became a Libertarian because the arguments were valid. I changed my mind when I realized they weren't sound.

[@missalbania9260]

Because the right and the left have sound arguments? LOL

[@nl5455]

Damn I never thought of that before

[@Helmutandmoshe]

And if you spend more time and even more effort, you'll change your mind again.

[@Tr3v0rr96]

Finally! I've been waiting to see this for a while!

[@Tr3v0rr96]

KC I'm talking about the series. I've already known about deductive arguments from the prep LSAT book and most of the stuff David has already talked about in his critical thinking mini series is mentioned on the LSAT prep books. I'm just happy he's circulating this onto KZbin for people to learn from.

[@Tr3v0rr96]

KC okay, you're talking about the series, big whoop! "you're really helping your population." Or maybe people who have never come across David's videos or skeptical thinking in general could benefit. What does this have to do with the LSAT?

[@Tr3v0rr96]

KC as for the gun fetish argument, there's a legitimate difference between regular gun owners, and overly zealous NRA members. To call it an ad hominem in some cases could be warranted, but often that is not the case.

[@harshikachauhan9445]

Thank you so much... I had been trying to understand this for days nw .. I finally did.. thank-you so much Sir!

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

Great series, I just found it. Thanks

[@tonytran2973]

TY U HELPED ME FOR MY EXAM FOR ONE OF MY MULTIPLE CHOICE

[@glendagraves1637]

Thank you for doing the critical thinking series.

[@Achillic]

I have an exam on this. Thank you sooo much you are life saver

[@ashxxxxq]

Fantastic! Thank you, David!

[@GBart]

This needs to be taught in Elementary Schools

[@jtrinipapi]

This is actually a high school college preparatory level course well it seems extremely basic because David Packman is doing a great job explaining watch the same topic with the same explanations taught by a different person it will confuse the shit out of you and it’s only David being very clear that makes it simple to understand this should be understood and known by every adult American Bar Nunn you should not be able to vote or run for office if you do not know basic understandings like critical thinking however I bet 90% of Americans don’t know the critical thinking or thinking logically is actually studied and Part of a people often ramble and say well done that’s just logical and they don’t even have the slightest idea of what logical thinking is how to go about it or what it really means logic to one person is the assumption that every basic person should understand that but they don’t actually know what it takes to be logical or what makes something logical critical thinking is more in depth than elementary level education however I do hear your point in that it is definitely a necessity should be required and it should be taught at an early enough age to where if you don’t understand it you still have time in middle school or high school to learn about it more ask more questions see the average student doesn’t realize that having a good day in school is not simply going to school and getting good grades a good day in school is what was the best question that you asked today and every day you should try harder and harder to ask a better question because lots of people don’t askAnd that’s because they’re either shy or embarrassed to admit that they don’t know something but the smartest man in the room knows that they don’t know everything and so they’re constantly asking questions so that they can learn in the better the question the more that you can learn

[@GBart]

Who's Bar Nunn?

[@luguy8347]

Pakman is very concise. Short and sweet.

[@lotusson]

Feels like the video needs to be 2-3 times longer to really dive deeper into the issue and provide more examples.

[@dennis-qu7bs]

just watch this video 2-3 times more and it will be crystal!

[@zainio]

Really? In this case, I think more than enough examples were given which covered all sorts of scenarios regarding the validity and truth of premises and conclusions. That being said, I would be interested in a video where they make arguments regarding some simple and popular topics following these formats.

[@tongsam3555]

Thanks for the help I have a better understand what validity and soundness

[@Danzigx]

David Sir I'm 110 years old and I love making deductive arguments!

[@razumnovichka]

SIR

[@nikopoulos5241]

Whats wrong with Ted Cruz? Why would this be a "horrible reality"?

[@pauljohnson7791]

Regardless of whether it is horrible, that jab has no place in a technical discussion of logic.

[@razumnovichka]

@@pauljohnson7791 let's keep thing as humourless as possible

[@fromawayme192]

need to sequence the sessions properly ... session 2 references a point in made in session 3 ... a little confusing

[@saarangsahasrabudhe8634]

I have a technical query. Following Aristotle's is correspondence truth theory, to say something is true means: 1. You have a claim 2. You have a standard or an "ideal case" for what you want to get from that claim 3. You compare the two things and VALIDATE your claim. i.e. Truth or Soundness itself is a type of Validation, not something separate from it... am I mistaken here?

[@markallen3293]

Thanks Dave...

[@JasonBurnettsProfile]

I think you missed the first part of the series. You state in this video #2 that we are going to go over something we have already discussed--except that you just introduced the entire concept of critical thinking in the first video--we didn't discuss any of the topics you give us a refresher on in this video. What I am suggesting is that this video should follow a video where you introduce deductive arguments or you should edit the beginning and just introduce them here. Before this video (which you claim is a recap of our previous discussion), you only introduced the scope of this series. Perhaps you originally intended to produce an Intro and then Video 1, but only produced the Intro (as video 1 in the series.) lol

[@brianpan6453]

I don't see the link.

[@chivasgamergirl22]

Thank you

[@changingworld2]

(1) Dav correctly identifies a sound and valid argument on a video. (2) Dav argues the validity and soundness of leftist economic theory. (3) Therefore leftist economic theory is sound??? Bless him...

[@changingworld2]

Exactly!

[@Teewaree13]

thank you, this was a better video that what the prof assigned.

[@HaoSci]

1:57 **It's a horrible reality. (a hidden jab)**

[@nikopoulos5241]

Yeah what a loser the narrator is

[@janea5898]

Hillary Clinton is a democrat: Debatable. 🤓 lol jk. I like this series! More more!

[@daniel4647]

Thanks for this, I'll check that out, looks like a good site.

[@gamerboy5908]

Love it

[@Bcffgjnbgddxchjhgv255]

Thank you for this. We need so much more of this.

[@quikdraw5203]

Cogent, strong and true.

[@mikefrey07]

Is it just me or are episodes 2 and 3 misplaced? Episode 2 talks about deductive arguments which are not covered until episode 3.

[@Grande.biggly]

I like that you do videos like this .it hopfully promotes logical thinking. I dont think you would find this on pro nix/ler videos. In fact i have found done of them delete my questions in comments before anyone cash read them, so what does that promote. I still see chumpster coments on your video's there to busy worrying about the "second amendment & forgetting about the first & third...

[@chadhazen4810]

How ironic (in the modern sense of the word) that you make an an Ad Hominem statement toward Ted Cruz.

[@razumnovichka]

It's not an Ad Hominem. He's stating his opinion. It is not part of an argument. If he was saying "Ted Cruz's energy policy has caused blackouts because he is horrible" That would be an Ad Hominem.

[@narfvader8651]

Lol, Fido is a dogs name in the US too? I thought this was a german thing.. Already learned sth David 👍👍👍

[@simon-pierreharvey309]

It's also French

[@aqmi]

Thank you so much for this

[@summerlove6989]

this man definitely cannot speak on biases.

[@razumnovichka]

This video was not about bias.

[@TheHappyTrainWreck]

Can you please use Molyneux's "Art of the Argument" in your examples? 😂

[@LonaPhilosophicus]

Not All Dogs can fly? Dont you mean Dogs cant fly!.. ?

[@Ou8y2k2]

C: England is my city? Fuck.

[@Wib0]

Jees fuck, I gave it a chance after the first video, but this is ridiculous bs. I mean, it's all true, but a child knows this shit. Just make sure he/she will be able to apply it to more complicated stuff when they grow up, and it'll be musclememory by the time the get into puberty.

[@ihartevil]

its called math class you do realize this is being taught in second grade math right thx for this ha bisky video that is on something like scishow kids

[@helu7777]

Adding your politics is an unfortunate distraction. Perhaps a lack of your mastery of critical thinking.

[@EamonKelly]

Not really a distraction, he only said like half a sentence about it. I just ignored it and continued on.

[@razumnovichka]

This was obviously a huge distraction because your logic is not sound

[@photoguy4212]

Can you do this for white privilege? I can’t figure out a valid or sound argument for it.

[@charliekowittmusic]

P1: White Privilege describes advantages enjoyed, on average, by those with visibly white skin in a given social context. P2: In America, those who do not have white skin are dealing with more discrimination in the CJS, infrastructure and housing, employment, income, ecology, etc. on average. Valid & Sound Conclusion: In America, White Privilege as a concept accurately describes several dimensions of life.

[@Helmutandmoshe]

You ruin the possibility of me using this as a reference because of your editorial partisan judgements thrown in. Just leave it out. Make this legitimate by establishing critical thinking as a process outside of our partisan stupidities.

[@razumnovichka]

That really stung, eh?

[@Helmutandmoshe]

@@razumnovichka No, did it sting you?

[@d.cannuscio3151]

"Trump-Russia Trump-Russia Trump-Russia Trump-Russia Trump-Russia Trump-Russia...." - David Pakman

[@EamonKelly]

At no point is Trump or Russia mentioned in this video.

[@d.cannuscio3151]

@@EamonKelly

[@missalbania9260]

Nicely explained video; however, I hate youre left-leaning politics in the guise of "independent" thinking

[@viktorviktorelius4032]

Love how David calls Jordan Peterson a life coach then makes posts like these 😂😂😂