CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Soundness [HD]

[@justamoteofdust]

A) this video is informative. B) I love videos that are informative. C) therefore, I love this video.

[@jameseast294]

Actually, your argument is unsound.

[@jameseast294]

The premises must guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Even if you love informative videos, and a video is informative. That dose not prove you'll love it. E.g An informative video about something gross, and you loving informative videos. Dose not equal: you will love the video.

[@justamoteofdust]

@@jameseast294 and how do you claim to know that?! If I said that I love informative videos, then I do. No terms and conditions.

[@JD-jl4yy]

​@@jameseast294 It is still a valid argument though. "I love videos that are informative" is a premise, so how gross a video is doesn't make a difference for the validity of the conclusion.

[@JD-jl4yy]

@@jameseast294 "Even if you love informative videos, and a video is informative. That dose not prove you'll love it." This is wrong. *_IF_* you love informative videos and a video is informative, it does undeniably prove that you'll love it. It's just that the "if" is an assumption that might not hold in reality. That's why the argument could be considered unsound.

[@p.hhenry4454]

1) Humans need oxygen to survive 2) You are a human Conclusion: Therefore, you need oxygen to survive.

[@crunxxyy3527]

Unsound Premise 2 is not true. I am a flying spagghetti monster, not a human.

[@Arombli]

@@crunxxyy3527 All hail the flying spaghetti monster!

[@josky852]

@@crunxxyy3527 But you still need oxygen to survive! So we have an example of an unsound argument with a true conclusion.

[@lacrimoxa_]

@@josky852 Being a flying spaghetti monster myself, not all of our kind need oxygen to survive.

[@pessimistprime6318]

1) Humans need food to survive ✅ 2) Epstein didn’t kill himself ✅ Conclusion: Therefore, humans are food ✅

[@jameseast294]

Such a convoluted way of explaining basic logic.

[@jameseast294]

@No One Sure buddy. You're a logic illiterate calling me unintelligent.

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

Do you know any introductory level books?

[@Battusai1984]

I might be coming at this from a completely wrong angle but while the concept of a sound argument is easy to define, in practice it becomes undermined by "to the best of our knowledge" on purely factual matters, and "in my experience/opinion" on subjective matters.

[@hadlevick]

Battusai1984 Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfmultidimentionalover... The polydynamics of the movement generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...) Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability... unidimensional variability = live-beings

[@Chris-bm1wf]

those arguments may not be deductive in nature, hence cannot be described by soundness very well

[@Ash_W04]

The later describes inductive argument though, right?

[@balynabad3781]

This helps me so much for my daughter. Thank you so much

[@stinkleaf]

Now service humanity by applying this test on political arguments that are swarming the world scarce supply of rationality.

[@sandwich675]

search jordan peterson

[@paradigmarson9586]

Politics is a terrible place to learn rationality, but a great place to apply it.

[@paradigmarson9586]

Peterson does arguments of mixed usefulness. Some are deductively valid, of which some have premises we can be quite sure of. Sometimes he starts from premises I find dubious e.g. the existence of archetypes. Sometimes his arguments are inductively valid, but only weakly so -- or inductively invalid, but still useful for adjusting probabilities. I'd say he's overall good for rationality and philosophy of science, but I'd be weary of holding him up as an example of sound deductive reasoning since much of the time he uses weaker forms with intuition. Interesting, useful, honest -- not always reliable. We'd do him a disservice evaluating him in such limited criteria.

[@OnoxOrion]

There is a slight technicality which I think makes the last argument invalid, although it may depend on the translation between logic and language. One would also need that "whales exist" as a third premise. If whales did not exist then vacuously they would all be mammals and have fur.

[@paradigmarson9586]

I feel 'Whales do not have fur' contains the information 'Whales exist' since "Whales" is the subject of 'do not'. On the other hand "It is not the case that whales have fur" does not contain the information signified by "Whales exist". I'm sure there are grammarians and logicians who will disagree with me.

[@Blaqunicorn]

Aaron, if you see this, I have a question. Would 'whales exist' be considered an unstated premise for this argument, or does it even matter at all, since the argument meets the previous guideline you established in that an argument is valid when: if the premises are true, it would mean the conclusion is also true?

[@sawyeranderson4166]

@@Blaqunicorn The premise that "Whales do not have fur" is false, all whales actually do have fur, it is just that the fur on MOST whale species is not visible. BTW the species of whales that have visible fur/hair are the humpback whales. The golfball-sized lumps you are able to observe on a humpback's head each house a hair follicle.

[@Samuel-qc7kg]

@@paradigmarson9586 But I can state something about something that doesn't exist. Like saying "unicorns love eating apples" and it wouldn't imply unicorns exist.

[@darrenchen2494]

P1) I just watched this video. P2) This video was informative. C) I was informed by this video.

[@jameseast294]

Your argument is unsound.

[@ryantsui1751]

P1 is not a premises since it has no truth value.

[@Scholar1246]

​@@ryantsui1751'I just watched this video' can be true or false

[@camilogomez3822]

Thanks a lor, I'm loving this topic and this videos are very helpful and well explained

[@enchypeachy964]

P1) Trees produce oxygen P2) Oak is a tree C) Therefore, oak produces oxygen.

[@jonchurey531]

With the final argument being a sound one, and a valid conclusion has to follow from the premises, could one not argue that no mammals have fur?

[@Cjeska]

Jon Churey It would be an invalid argument, because if we assume that "no mammals have fur" would be wrong, both premises (whales have no fur and whales are mammals) would still be correct. If all premises are correct while the conclusion is wrong, it's an invalid argument.

[@Cjeska]

***** No, you don't have to know if the conclusion is true, you just assume for a second that it is wrong, then you go back to your premises and see if they would still be correct under that assumption.

[@UzairAlvi-qs5fd]

@1:05 did you meant to say "all cats are purple" or "all cats are people"

[@invisible2925]

I laughed so hard at the unsound valid arguments lmao

[@Choiwaru-otousama]

P1.)The sky is blue from the sun during the day. P2.) The sky gets darker through the night. C.) Therefore you cannot see the light from the sun at night.

[@poojanoza8151]

Sky can also get darker cuz of clouds and bad weather

[@Nikolai.A.McGuire]

P1: I'm alive P2: I'm a human P3: Humans need 02 to survive Thus; I need 02 to survive.

[@progressivehouseclusive3835]

Hi, I just want to make sure if whether or not my answers are incorrect. please help me with these as my instructor says arguments 1 and 2 are invalid which I answered VALID argument 1 - "If Miriam went to medical school, then she is a doctor. Miriam is a doctor. Therefore, Miriam went to medical school." argument 2 - "All mammals are animals. All birds are animals. Therefore, all birds are mammals" While the argument 3 is valid according to my instructor which I answered invalid. argument 3 - "Maria is Estela’s sister. Estela is Sophia’s mother. Therefore, Maria is Sophia’s aunt." please can someone explain why my answers are wrong?

[@RickJaeger]

Argument 1 is invalid because the premises don't specify that Going to medical school is the *only* way of becoming a doctor. In other words, P->Q is not the same as Q->P. Argument 2 is invalid because the premises don't specify that the only kinds of animals bird can be are mammals. In other words, you cannot conclude from A->C and B->C, that A->B. I don't know about Argument 3, tbh. It seems incomplete to me. It should at the very least include a premise that defines "aunt."

[@tahliajoi]

This helped me so much. My textbook made no sense lol

[@j3llo777]

Lol my professor made no sense

[@SP-qi8ur]

1:05 you said "people" instead of "purple"

[@Jrce11]

It was on purpose. The 2nd premise says all purple things are people. If a cat was purple and the 2nd premise was true then all cats would be people.

[@SP-qi8ur]

Eusebio Estrela He was simply re-stating the premises. At 1:05 he is paraphrasing the first premise, i.e. "if all cats were purple", not "if all cats were people". Do you see what I mean?

[@Siberius-]

Oh true. In premise 1, he accidentally says "people", instead of "purple". Which results in him repeating the same line from P1, for the conclusion. Broly - Yes, but that's the conclusion. Not premise 1. He now accidentally has P1 and C, as the same thing. But we know what he meant, because it's written on the screen. I actually missed it the first time. If he meant what he said.. then the conclusion would change to.. "all cats are purple". As far as I can gather. I thinkkk.

[@deltamico]

Shouldn't be the last argument invalid because there is nothing like "there is more species in the mammal group"?

[@Shifterwizard]

Whales do have fur. It's very fine, and only in certain spots, but they do.

[@paradigmarson9586]

What about arguments that are valid in that the conclusions follow from the set of all premises and don't require *every* premise to be true, just some of them? Would that not count as an argument? Perhaps it wouldn't count as an inference but would count as an argument? I'm just being pedantic and pointing out exceptions. If this confuses you, ignore me.

[@davidh.4944]

I'm going to hazard a guess that any set of premises like that would be treated as a single compound conditional, e.g. "either A or B or C exists", and a single truth value assessed for the whole.

[@015prabhatkumar6]

P1 : I live in Bihar P2 : Bihar is in India. C: I live in India.

[@aarrodri]

add a linked annotation to the validity video at the beginning of this one.

[@WirelessPhilosophy]

Aaron Rodriguez Great idea. The screenshot for validity is now clickable. Appreciate the constructive feedback!

[@buayo475]

Is it purple or people?

[@fjblazing9332]

the last argument is invalid. It's EAI- 3

[@Blaqunicorn]

I hate the idea of getting married. I am a woman. Therefore, not all women want to get married. How's that? ;)

[@deltamico]

Well, you can lie to us =)

[@MrAndrew201]

Is it possible to have false premises that entail a conclusion???

[@airplant3340]

It is possible

[@TimeraB]

that what the purple example was

[@universallight-ew4fr]

I'm going to be assume you meant to say "true" before conclusion. Yes, an argument with false premises can have a true conclusion. The video gives one example. Here's another P1: the sum of two odd numbers is always even P2: 5+5=12 C: therefore, 12 is even

[@evanskornor3716]

Many people do not understand this course hewhehehehehehehehehehehehe. Yea its a back and forth course.

[@ButterHaus420]

Wow is your first name Evans?

[@anybody2501]

How do you verify if a premise is true?

[@6li7ch]

All premises are statements, and all statements can be treated as both premises and conclusions. So to determine if a premise is true, you treat it as the conclusion to a sound argument resting on at least two more premises. It's largely inductive as to how you go about finding the correct premises for that argument from the mess of possible statements. Naturally, you then have to determine the truth of THOSE statements. That rests on higher levels of logic which are vastly more complicated, but if you'd like a basic idea of how it works you can read Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Continuous Golden Braid.

[@ptolemyauletesxii8642]

In the end you cannot. You have to start with a basal assumption, essentially 'reality is real and intelligent beings can at least partially perceive it' or something like that. You always grant some small possibility that you could be wrong, that we could all be brains in a vat etc.

[@thevisi0naryy]

1. this video is a sharpie video 2. sharpie videos are usually advertisements c. i do not trust sharpie videos Lol just kidding, great video.

[@nomoiman]

+thevisi0nary That's not even deductive haha

[@paradigmarson9586]

P1. sharpie videos are advertisements P2. advertisements are untruthworthy C sharpie videos are untrustworthy P1. this video is a sharpie video P2. sharpie videos are untrustworthy C this video is untrustworthy I'll concede sharpie videos aren't all advertisements, so P2 is false, making the first stanza unsound, allowing the first stanza's conclusion to be false, allowing the second stanza's P2 to be false, making the second stanza unsound thus allowing its conclusion to be false.

[@reemb8529]

it's invalid

[@FridayAlvarez]

Yes, the premises are not even related to the conclusion. This guy should have been searching for another thing is not philosophy.

[@Anakox]

"Not all mammals have fur" means that "some mammals have fur and some don't".

[@fh9663]

HELP! 1. If a patient quality of life is poor then euthanasia is permissible 2 Euthanasia reduces pain and suffering Therefore euthanasia is morally permissible Why is this invalid Can u give a suggestion to my premise on how to make it vaild Please

[@jsohi0082]

@F H Looks like your argument is something of the form: If A then B. C, therefore B. Which is invalid, so I will try to change it as follows: If euthanasia reduces pain and suffering for a patient, then euthanasia is morally permissible. Euthanasia reduces pain and suffering for a patient, therefore euthanasia is morally permissible. (If A then B. A, therefore B.) The most obvious way i could change the form of your argument is to change the C part of your original argument (patient quality of life is poor) to the B part of your original argument (reduces pain and suffering). This turn it into a modus ponens, which is logically valid. With this steel-manned version of your argument, I could debate its soundness from there.

[@fh9663]

@@jsohi0082 thank you !! I keep struggling in my philosophy class

[@peterglen8396]

Other than fleshing out forms, why would one ever use a non-sound arguments?

[@Akixkisu]

To obscure information and make an attempt at manipulating the other fraction to believe in your ideology or due to a lack of information or due to an human error...or... A sizeable number of other reasons and believes or even convictions.

[@shashidharbelagavi4227]

1. All smartphones are computers. 2. All computers are electronic. Conclusion :- All smartphones are electronic

[@kythrathesuntamer9715]

1. A computer is a machine that can be instructed to carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations automatically via computer programming. 2. Smartphones can be programmed to perform mathematical calculations via computer programming languages. conclusion: Smartphones are computers. 3. in order to do calculations automatically you need electricity. 4. Computers do calculations automatically. conclusion: all smartphones are electronic.

[@universallight-ew4fr]

Premise 2 is false. Not all computers are electronic. An abacus is a computer that's not electric. Also, while I can't confirm if they exist because I've only seen a concept, it is possible for there to be a computer that uses marbles rather than electricity.

[@ptolemyauletesxii8642]

1. Sending bears to eat children is evil. 2. God sent bears to eat children. C. Therefore God is good. (according to an Eritrean Pentacostal friend of mine)

[@therealsneak7699]

The man behind the slaughter is a person

[@timex1735]

My colleague never arrives on time. My colleague is German. Not all Germans are punctual.

[@timex1735]

@@themushroom2130 Why?

[@themushroom2130]

@@timex1735 sorry, i got my wording wrong That is a valid one

[@timex1735]

@@themushroom2130 Cool

[@oliverkirkland9332]

Actually, your last argument is unsound; whales do, in fact, have hair. It is vestigial, but it IS there. It's like calling humans "hairless monkeys" just because we aren't covered head-to-toe in fur like all other primates; we do still have hair on top of our heads, and we have vestigial body hair (even though with all the shaving we need to do, it doesn't feel like it's vestigial!), thus we are not "hairless monkeys."

[@zzzdarkcloudzzz4233]

P1) Sugar is a powder P2) Humans can breathe C) Therefore Humans can snort sugar

[@jameseast294]

Unsound. The premises must guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Humans can breath through their noses, should have been P2 or P1. No need for two premises in this example.

[@zzzdarkcloudzzz4233]

@@jameseast294 Did i stutter?

[@TheChurchOfPhakeKnewz]

Nice video