Critical Thinking: Issues, Claims, Arguments

[@SupremeKingSovereign]

This should be taught in preschool and every grade after it.

[@reasoniocritthinking]

That would certainly be good

[@reasoniocritthinking]

***** Yes, I'm familiar with the trivium

[@TheGoodInquisitor]

+TheMrStoryTeller If this goes into schools it means goodbye to politicians. :))

[@Damion00000]

not necessarily, it just means that lying politicians will be out of a job.

[@williamspringer9447]

TheMrStoryTeller •••••• They don't teach the science of logic to slaves. Our State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of Logic for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's the first lecture I videoed from my Critical Thinking class last semester -- first shot at lecture capture for us at FSU (where I was teaching then) -- so necessarily very basic stuff. We went on to shoot 23 more, and load them into FSU's institutional channel. Now, teaching elsewhere, I shoot them and load them into my channel

[@phils3631]

If one wanted to follow these lectures at home, what text book(s) would I need to do so.

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@phils3631 Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, 8th edition, I think

[@phils3631]

Gregory B. Sadler ok great, thank you.

[@williamspringer9447]

Gregory B. Sadler ••••• Here are some "claims "for you. •••• (1) The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. •••• (2) Schools teach "Critical thinking" so they won't have to teach the science of Logic , which is more difficult to subvert due to the thousands of years of defining literature on the subject of the science of Logic..•••• (3) I'm about a half hour in and I haven't heard you use the word "evidence one time".•••• (4) Logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence, of they are not logical. •••• (5) No master in his right mind wants to teach three hundred million heavily armed slaves to reason clearly.

[@phils3631]

William Springer Cool Story Pal.

[@caylynmillard6047]

These lectures should be on here forever.--claim. Good job man.

[@Yatukih_001]

Then we need to keep social media secular so that they will not make service terms into the religion they are now.

[@williamspringer9447]

caylyn millard ••••• I'm twenty minutes in and this guy hasn't said the word "evidence" one time. Yes teaching "Critical thinking" so he won't have to teach the science of Logic.

[@Twistedhippy]

I watched these Lectures about 4 years ago and they're still the back bone of my Philosophical skill set. Thank you.

[@williamspringer9447]

Twistedhippy •••• I'm about a half hour in and I haven't heard him say the word "evidence" one time . Hes not teaching us to reason logically.

[@Twistedhippy]

@@williamspringer9447 Evidence?

[@williamspringer9447]

Twisted Hippie•••• Logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence of they are not logical. That's a law of logic that is thousands of years old. That's why they like to teach "Critical thinking" rather than the science of Logic. "Critical thinking" is easier to subvert , They don't have thousands of years of literature on the subject of Logic that they must suppress. "Critical thinking" is whatever they say it is.•••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• 'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.' -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••••••••• 'The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.' -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing •••••••••• 'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.' -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••••••••• 'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.' -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

[@Twistedhippy]

@@williamspringer9447 Thanks I just meant in what context. To be fair these lectures seem to be just some of the classes from a series, it's been 6 months since I last even looked so I'm going from memory, perhaps the topic of epistemology or some theory of truth preceded this lecture? Evidence and what constitutes good evidence is highly important. "Where we cannot speak of doubt we cannot speak of certainty" Wittgenstein. ( I hope I recall that correctly, I just wanted to join in the quote making :)

[@williamspringer9447]

There is no reliable evidence that man ever walked on the Moon. There is no reliable evidence that HIV ever caused AIDS. There was no reliable evidence that there were weapons of destruction in Iraq. Can you see why teaching common people to demand reliable evidence to prove an argument is important in a republic ? Do you understand why the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century? The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@ernestweber5207]

This, in a more simple form, should be a part of the MEDIA LITERACY training that children need. Maybe 10th grade would be a good place to start introducing them to these concepts. It isn't any more difficult than math or science. If we had this in the curriculum two or three decades back, children and adults would be better prepared for the increasingly powerful techniques utilized by corporations and politicians to persuade them. Chomsky wrote about it in Manufacturing Consent. Thanks for posting these. I felt like I was back in college. Excellent job.

[@GregoryBSadler]

They are in order in my playlist, and in the order they were uploaded. As far as they go in other playlists, I can't speak to that

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm glad you like them. I do have some shorter videos -- the Dr Sadler Chalk and Talk series. And, eventually, I'll be producing a whole new series of Critical Thinking videos, perhaps even an accompanying textbook. And, those videos will be shorter

[@alamislahi]

I am from Delhi, India, I had the opportunity to listen to all your lectures. I congratulate you for touching on every aspect of Critical Think in a very nice and beautiful way and explaining it beautifully, which is not only gives an your idea of the grasp and information on the subject but also gives the method and style of explaining how to better explain even the most difficult subject. You have done a great favor to students like us by describing it in a simple and easy way. I pray to God for your health and safety.

[@justsayin5110]

Thank you prof. I'm starting learning logic to prepare myself to test my philosophical and religeous views. This course will help me alot. Thanks alot ❤

[@fluxo_musical]

Thanks professor Sadler! Im from Brasil and here I have never had a class on Critical Thinking, even in college. Since I can understand english, I use It to learn philosophy through the internet, and your videos have become realy instructive and helpfull to me in that sense. I believe that Critical Thinking should be taught in brazilian schools (claim) because It seens to constitute a premise in order to understand philosophy and science's claims, wich are fundamental to a majority, If not all, of the curriculums of particular courses within universities and colleges. Again, thank you for the content, and congratulations for realizing that you should make it public.

[@TorianTammas]

Raphael Duarte - I wish it would be mandatory in every school all over the globe to teach critical thinking.

[@williamspringer9447]

Raphael Duarte ••••• "Critical thinking " is must a subversion of the science of Logic which has been defined and studied for thousands of years .The science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools in the US for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@drollette08]

E uma pena que o Brasil não oferece classes assim nas escola

[@АпологетикаБазинского]

God Bless You, Professor Sadler.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome -- thanks also ought to go to Suzanne Hesseltine, who actually did all of the work required to get these into KZbin

[@GregoryBSadler]

Unfortunately, no. This was a lecture video for the CT class back in 2011, the last semester I taught for FSU, so the notes mentioned were for that class, and made available to the students in the course management system. I will be creating some new CT courses in the next year or so, however, with a robust online presence, and lots of resources.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well -- to jump into this debate -- we're generally discussing anything whatsoever on the basis of a number of assumptions about what we already agree to in common, assumptions that can of course turn out to be unfounded, and then in turn call for some backing, possibly by an argument. I'd point out that one could -- and some people seem to -- demand justification for every single claim made, but this pretty much kills discussion between people. So, pragmatically, that demand would be a mistake

[@williamspringer9447]

Gregory B. Sadler •••• How can you accept an argument as logical if it isn't properly supported by solid evidence ? Why are you so reluctant to explain to your audience that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence in order to be logical?

[@algenr123]

This was a great lecture. I can't wait to listen to the rest of them. So glad to have found these lectures.

[@williamspringer9447]

algenr123 •••• Ever wondered why they didn't teach you the science of logic in State controlled public school? Hint: For the same reason that this guy didn't teach you to reason logically here .

[@Chef-Juice]

@@williamspringer9447 actually he did, in his lesson on claims you are trying to convince someone, something is true or not, the same for arguments when asked why do you believe this claim, which concludes to your question, why isn't public schools teaching the science of logic, that is an argument but you can say its also a reason, hence the entire point of the video,

[@nabicx]

@@williamspringer9447 if you're so smart, go teach it. oh wait that's right, the DEEP STATE won't allow it, how convinient for you.

[@Jbwibo]

I have just learned about your videos. I must tell you this basically they are a service to society, to the world. I starting my 1st class in Philosophy in one of the top universities in Kenya, East Africa. You very clear and audiable. Your pace is exactly right. I thought I should add to the voices that are totally impressed by your approach being a new to philosophy.

[@williamspringer9447]

Julius Bwibo •••• They don't teach us the science of Logic here in the US in our State controlled public schools. They want to keep us nice and stupid. This professor never explained that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence or they are not logical. I wonder why he forgot to explain that first law of logic ?

[@josephmaina4093]

I love every bit of this lecture. The bit on non-claims was especially helpful.

[@reasoniocritthinking]

+Joseph Maina Glad it was useful for you

[@williamspringer9447]

Joseph Maina ••••• Did he ever mention that logical argument must be properly supported by solid evidence ?

[@NychelleStephens]

Thank you. Just starting my academic journey and this is helpful.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Sure, "I am the best" is a claim, and if it is made in an unqualified manner, yes, it implies that others are not the best, or are lower -- unless there's a tie.

[@whiteangel7777777]

I love listening to this man . He really looks like he enjoys his job, god I wish I can find my own niche

[@williamspringer9447]

This guy suckers kids into thinking he's teaching them how to reason clearly . That's not much of a niche.

[@formulaint]

@@williamspringer9447 How do you know what his intentions are?

[@formulaint]

@@williamspringer9447 nm, I've read your stuff and you're making a lot of sense.

[@peaceandgeek]

Thank you for posting these! These have been incredibly helpful in my Critical Thinking course with Athabasca University!

[@williamspringer9447]

peaceandgeek •••• Did this guy ever say that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence of they are not logical? If he didn't , he forgot something pretty important .

[@LudicFallacies]

He's a great prof !!! You're lucky to have him. I wish he would change the playlist order or create a playlist where the videos are in a chronological order. Some of the videos I've found hard to figure out the sequence as you in the class saw it. BTW thanks Dr. Sadler for sharing your lectures !

[@williamspringer9447]

LudicFallacies •••• That's right , he's great at keeping the peasants nice and stupid .He didn't even explain that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence. He might as well tie his students backward on a horse , blindfolded , for all the good he did them.

[@Kwintessential2]

This is helping me in my Graduate program. Thank you.

[@williamspringer9447]

Kwintessential2 •••• I don't think this guy said once that logical argument must be properly supported by solid evidence. That's a pretty important thing to lie in a Logic class . But then again, they call this "Critical thinking."

[@eagertolearn2023]

@@williamspringer9447 It would be nice if you could make a series on how to reason logically.

[@mettakindness5999]

I’m really enjoying this lecture series. Great teacher!!!

[@williamspringer9447]

Metta Kindness •••• Read "Thinking to Some Purpose" by Stebbing of " The Art of Controversy " by Schopenhauer . They'll actually try to teach you to reason logically .

[@diegogorini727]

These kids probably didn't understand, at the time, that their professor was actually providing them with the most powerful tool for life...

[@janus7998]

Dr. Sadler, I would argue that "The best hamburger in town" on a billboard would be a claim.

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

I can only repeat what so many commentators already stated before me. Thank you very much for your lessons. I never had the chance to take a class like yours, so I'm more than happy about this opportunity. Only wish there would be a shorter and more compact video of this - I still have issues with my attention span. ;) Just kidding - awesome stuff and great presentation, Dr. Sadler!

[@williamspringer9447]

MyReligionIs2DoGood •••• Hey, maybe next time he'll actually teach you how to logically evaluate an argument? He calls this "Critical thinking " so he doesn't have to actually do that .

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

@@williamspringer9447 Not sure what you are talking about. Personally, I found this lecture interesting. I'm not sure if the goal of it was to actually teach people how to think critically - which would be impossible in such a short video anyway. Maybe if someone just listens to what is said in the video and uses it to get their own ideas going, instead of expecting something that is not the intended purpose of it? Sorry if you couldn't get anything out of this.

[@williamspringer9447]

MyReligionIs2DoGood •••• The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The reason for this is simple : They want us nice stupid so they can fleece us and here is off to war whenever they like . When this professor makes a video about "Critical thinking" and never mentions that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence, that those up a lot of red flags . Here's some information that you may find helpful: ••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• 'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.' -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••••••••• 'The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.' -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing •••••••••• 'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.' -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••••••••• 'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.' -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

@@williamspringer9447 Nice collection of quotes right there. However, at which point in the video did Dr. Sadler claim that we should apply critical thinking to claims _without_ having evidence to support them? Must have missed that...

[@williamspringer9447]

MyReligionIs2DoGood •••• Okay, you got me . He forgot to tell you the first and most important law of the science of logic, which leaves you intellectually at the mercy of your controllers, because he's a really good professor . Sorry.

[@BenjaminLStewart]

A good argument also involves an initial argument, a counter argument (explains weaknesses in initial argument), and a rebuttal (explains weaknesses in counter argument).

[@GregoryBSadler]

Depends on how you mean "argument". In Critical Thinking, and in Logic, it doesn't involve all those components. In other disciplines, it can

[@BenjaminLStewart]

Gregory B. Sadler, thanks for the reply. So how would an argument rooted in critical thinking and in logic differ from the components of a typical persuasive argument that I list above?

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's not a question of whether it's "rooted" in CT or Logic. It's simply this: for CT and Logic "argument" means a set of claims where one of the claims (the conclusion) is being supported (or at least one says it is) by the other claims. What you're describing is what would be called an "extended argument", composed of other, simpler arguments

[@BenjaminLStewart]

I see. I've heard this referred to as reasoning patterns: one-on-one reasoning, side-by-side reasoning, chain reasoning, and joint reasoning (Machi & McEvoy, 2009). I assumed that in any argument, one would choose different reasoning patterns based on the purpose of the piece. And to form an argument required some degree of acknowledgement of some counterargument so that different perspectives were considered. But I see your point. Thanks for your comments.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, there's all sorts of terminology used in the various disciplines that work in one way or another with argumentation. I think the confusion is arising because the sorts of things you're interested in are working at higher level than Logic or CT typically are -- by the time you're talking about antcipating counter-arguments, you're describing a higher-order activity than simply making arguments

[@torosalvajebcn]

Thanks for this, I love the way you teach, very inspiring and deep. Greetings from Spain.

[@williamspringer9447]

torosalvajebcn •••• "Critical thinking " is taught so they won't have to teach you the science of Logic and the art of rhetoric . Logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence of they are not logical.

[@MizMaverick00]

From one Packer fan to another thanks for sharing these videos, you are fantastic at what you do with teaching this!

[@williamspringer9447]

MizMaverick00 ••••• I wish he had mentioned that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence.That would have been helpful.

[@GregoryBSadler]

All readings for that course -- which I should stress, I have not taught for several years, since I left FSU to move north to the NY area -- were from the textbook. I did supply my students with some handouts in the course management system

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, if I end up writing a text, I'll probably just epublish it -- in that format, it can be done very cheaply, indexed specifically to the associated videos, and produced practically immediately for any reader, who can then print it out if they so choose. First, though, I have to actually write it! Anybody can plan to write something. Doing it in reality is a whole different matter

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yeah. . . not the sort of think you can fix after a video has been uploaded. First time I've heard that issue

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad they've been useful for you -- you'll find the bulk of my videos over in my own personal channel, rather than here in FSU's channel

[@MohammedAB2030]

I absolutely love this class, you are an amazing teacher!

[@liamjames74]

Thanks for that. I have a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering but haven't studied in a good few years.I want to get my brain in gear again before starting a postgrad. As a student I work hard and have a mathematical mind. I hope this helps you with your answer, any advice on books/ resources would be appreciated.

[@williamspringer9447]

Liam Ahern ••••• You were able to get your degree without anyone teaching you how to use the science of Logic to evaluate arguments ? And this professor didn't teach that , by the way.

[@masteranza]

Great lecture. Would it be possible though to enable the youtube speedup feature? And please notice, I'm not making a CLAIM that the lecture is boring ;)

[@williamspringer9447]

masteranza ••••• What did this guy teach you that you actually found useful ? He didn't even explain the first law of logic .

[@masteranza]

@@williamspringer9447 Man, IDK it was 7 years ago... Probably I was willing to listen to it at 150%-200% speed.

[@saengtawanspurr8801]

Extremely clear and understandable

[@williamspringer9447]

Saengtawan Spurr ••• He did not honestly teach you to reason logically .

[@saengtawanspurr8801]

William Springer at the time, he was much better than my professor that was teaching the class.

[@williamspringer9447]

Saengtawan Spurr•••• I get it . But this guy forget to tell you the first and most important law of logic. Logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence. Why do you suppose he did that ?

[@habibzaki4671]

omg this is the assignment our lecturer gave us

[@AgRama-qd6dv]

wkwkwk sama njir

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

Can't wait to read your books on the topic! Hopefully they will be available in Germany.

[@williamspringer9447]

MyReligionIs2DoGood ••• I think the book is called "keeping the peasants nice and stupid by not teaching them that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence" .

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

@@williamspringer9447 You actually scoured through all the comments to find the other comment I made on this video? Impressive dedication.

[@williamspringer9447]

MyReligionIs2DoGood ••• But what do you think about the title of the book ?

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

@@williamspringer9447 I answered this already in my other comment. Be safe.

[@mcDynamit]

I think in a debate the mindset should be to learn from the other person's view rather than accept/reject

[@GregoryBSadler]

@liamjames74 What we used at FSU was Moore and Parker's Critical Thinking. Not a terrible textbook, but not a particularly good one either. Would I recommend it for independent study? That's a tough one -- so much of independent study depends on the student. It could be all right, I suppose. I've not thought much about what I would recommend for independent study -- and that requires a rather detailed answer, so I'll message you when I've had a chance to think about that some more

[@saioram]

thanks for a great course - is there course notes?

[@liamjames74]

What is the textbook referred to in this video and would you recommend it for independent study in conjunction with these videos? If not, would you provide details of other resources/texts.

[@williamspringer9447]

Liam Ahern •••• I think it was called "keeping the masses studip by not teaching them that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence, or they are not logical." They're going to be handing out a bunch of them right before our next bogus war .

[@GregoryBSadler]

@FierBarca1899 I don't get notices through KZbin for questions on the FSU channel -- answer is in comments on my own channel

[@GregoryBSadler]

Again, I'm no longer at FSU

[@maven1973FTM]

If the claims of two sides are unevenly split 95/5% does that still make it a "real" claim, if 95% of the "audience" accept one side of the claim, does the 5% of the opposite side of the claim have a case to make a "genuine" claim?

[@williamspringer9447]

maven1973FTM •••• In an argument between two opposing views , you should choose to believe the one that is deductively sound or inductively cogent (i.e.logical). You'll notice that the logical argument is always properly supported by solid evidence . Because if it isn't , it isn't logical. This professor forgot to tell you that .

[@nexovec]

"what's a claim?" "something that can be true or false" "that tells you something about the claim, but what is a claim?" "a statement, that's right" THAT'S THE EXACT SAME THING

[@sfjadi]

I just started watching these lectures, I want to which book are you following? Can you please share book name and author name?

[@pabloacevedo8416]

Where can I find the book you are using in the lecture? Could you share the name of it at least? Great an very informative lecture even after 10 years gone by.... greetings from Argentina!

[@avilae]

What textbook were you using please?

[@williamspringer9447]

Eliana Avila •••• I think the book was called "keep the peasants stupid by not teaching them that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence or they are not logical" .

[@jfvirey]

Shouldn't hypotheses be added to the list of "not claims"? When I suppose that X, when I say "let us assume for the sake of the argument that X", "Let us see what would follow from X", I am not asserting that X is or is not the case, but X is neither a question, a phrase, a command or an exclamation. It can be true or false, but I am not asserting either. (BTW, "percieve" is spelled "perceive".)

[@reasoniocritthinking]

+Jean-François Virey Yes, I know how the word is spelled. You'll hear me admit from time to time in my videos that spelling isn't my strong suit. A hypothesis could be considered an additional type of non-claim (though it incorporates a claim).

[@williamspringer9447]

Jean-François Virey ••••• Were you taught the science of Logic in high school ? I wasn't . My parents weren't . My grandparents weren't . My children weren't . Why do you suppose that is ? Is the argument that man walked on the Moon logical?

[@benedicttheodore8170]

i love this lectures ,thank you for posting ,, liked and subscribed !

[@ThaiNguyen-iq2pc]

Top 10 Skills in 2020 brings me here

[@williamspringer9447]

Check out "Thinking to Some Purpose" by Stabbing of " The Art of Controversy " Schopenhauer. They'll actually try to teach you to reason logically.

[@jegorsudnitson9148]

How is the book named that is used in this class. Can anyone tell me please?

[@janus7998]

Dr. Sadler, wouldn't an exclamation like "ouch" be a claim that I feel pain?

[@sosscs]

Can I know the title of the textbook you're using in the classroom? Thanks in advance

[@whiteangel7777777]

textbook used (and referenced) in the course was Moore and Parker's Critical Thinking.

[@williamspringer9447]

sosscs ••••• Have ever wondered why they didn't teach us the science of Logic in high school ? They don't teach logic to slaves.

[@mhrab7728]

If I say "This is not a claim" - Is this statement actually a claim?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, 9th ed

[@williamspringer9447]

The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is hard to lie to people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of logic or the art of rhetoric. ••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, "Rhetoric" •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition •••••••••• "The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded." -John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) •••••••••• "Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) •••••••••• "The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains." -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

[@williamspringer9447]

Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?(The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto) I guarantee you that if our government thought that making us believe in Zeus would make us twice as productive and easier to control , they would be teaching Zeus in our public schools right now. Our government has turned its back on Christianity because atheism makes better drones . They can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly. That's the stuff revolutions are made of. "The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire "Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.

[@Ethereal_dust]

Do you prefer this course to be watched by the general public?

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're quite welcome. If you like these vids, head on over to my channel, where I've got Intro to Philosophy and two different sets of Ethics videos posted

[@p0intblAnkwaziT]

What textbook was used in this class? Thanks!

[@thehomeschooladvantage]

This is fantastic!

[@ShwetankT]

Hi, which book do you refer to? These are very good lectures, btw. Thanks!​

[@williamspringer9447]

Shwetank T •••• This guy never explains the first law of logical reasoning . Logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence.

[@ShwetankT]

@@williamspringer9447 Now I think that people do not care for logic and evidence. They believe in their own propaganda and nothing can convince them otherwise. I have in mind the kind of well-educated people who are opinion makers like professors, think tanks, panelists etc

[@williamspringer9447]

Shwetank T •••• The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto. They want to keep the general population moved and gullible . And it is working .

[@ShwetankT]

@@williamspringer9447 It is the same everywhere. I think general population is more receptive and willing to discuss different ideas, without political correctness and hypocrisy off course.

[@TeklebrhanT]

This should be told to children before they go to so colled school.

[@HasnainFalak]

is commenting about something, or giving a compliment comes is a claim or just a statement. ?

[@Teratornis]

A claim is a statement. You may be thinking of the difference between subjective and objective claims. If you say "I think you look nice today" that is your subjective opinion, and no one can prove that you do not really think that. I.e., our only source of information about your subjective is opinion is what you tell us about it - although we could watch your behavior to see if you behave in a way that is consistent with what you claim to believe. But even if you behave in a way that appears to contradict your claim, you could still believe your claim. For example someone might say "I really should eat less and exercise more" yet fail to do it. The person might truly believe it would be a good idea, but cannot overcome contrary impulses. In contrast, if you say "That elephant weighs 4,356 kg" that is an objective claim (or statement) which other people can show to be true or false by evidence besides what you are claiming.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Teratornis Yep, anything that says something is the case -- subjective or objective, false or true, imaginary or real, etc. -- is a claim

[@krell2130]

claim-ment

[@williamspringer9447]

Hasnain Falak ••••• In the science of Logic they call it a proposition . A proposition is a statement that can be said to be true or false . This subject is called "critical thinking " because wish to avoid teaching you real logic .

[@PaulJusu-h8y]

Nice lectures 36:13

[@sergiuscocytus1958]

Every sentence should have a subject and a predicate (even that's not always the case). Those are not necessarily nouns and verbs. Now, I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue on one of the students' part.

[@williamspringer9447]

Sergius Cocytus •••• And every logical argument should be properly supported by solid evidence. I wonder why this professor forgot to mention that ?

[@yardarm5]

. performative language . thank you 🙏 .

[@kenlee5509]

8:43 Are you claiming there is a minimum required level of High Fructose Corn Syrup in the diet??

[@Trunks47r786]

THank you for uploading this video.

[@reasoniocritthinking]

+Trung Nguyen You're welcome!

[@deepakchandra8865]

Thanks !!

[@williamspringer9447]

Deepak chandra •••• Don't thank this guy . He didn't even tell you that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence. He might as well have put a blindfold on you .

[@karthik-qj4bw]

@@williamspringer9447 ohh yes

[@papajay111]

The term "get a haircut" is an ad hominem is if being used to support a claim or position and implies you are wrong because you have uncut hair!

[@williamspringer9447]

jay Roberge •••• How about, "start teaching your students that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence or they are not logical." Would that be an ad hominem ?

[@papajay111]

@@williamspringer9447 no that is not An ad hominem. But I don't always need ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to make a perfectly strong logical argument for instance one plus one is two therefore two minus one is equal to one! I provide no evidence at all but it is a logically strong argument.

[@williamspringer9447]

jay Roberge ••• Actuslly, when a proposition is self-evident , that is considered the strongest sort of evidence there is ••••• . "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• 'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.' -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••••••••• 'The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.' -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing •••••••••• 'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.' -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••••••••• 'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.' -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

[@papajay111]

@@williamspringer9447 your simply re DEFINING the term "evidence" to include logical proofs and that's fine AS LONG AS YOU MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR UP FRONT!!!!

[@papajay111]

@@williamspringer9447 Appeal to authority is a LOGICAL FALLACY!!! And you come close but you actually avoid it by using relavent legitimate authorities!! BUT,,,,,, KNOW that "priori knowledge" is always inferior to that of "a priori" when constructing premises for a deductive argument.

[@liulep]

Can claim be a verb? to claim

[@danielortega2441]

Too busy in my 45 hours work week that I am not regular in classes of this passionate instructor. I CLAIM to born in the wrong country. To not have such courses in India in any university is a tragedy in on itself.

[@williamspringer9447]

Daniel Ortega ••••• If they taught a billion Indians to reason clearly , the Aristocracy would have to flee India for their lives . The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools in the US for more than a century for exactly the same reason . The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

[@kelihurtin4359]

"The Best Hamburger and Fries Combo in Town" is a claim, right?

[@stefanstancioiu7335]

keliher it's actually two claims. one for the burger and one for the fries

[@joshschiesler1016]

Stefan Stancioiu just one claim. combo is the key

[@jammingwiththebard4500]

Not a claim. It is only half of an assertion. This is a compound subject or object of a sentence. Here would be a claim: "Joe's Restaurant has the best hamburger and fries combo in town" or "The best hamburger and fries combo in town is found at Joe's Restaurant."

[@williamspringer9447]

Jamming with the Bard ••••••• In the science of Logic they would call that a premise. And in order for an argument to be logical it must only be inferred from premises that are properly supported by solid evidence. That's a law of the science of logic. It's also something that this professor forgot to mention.

[@tvm7588]

You never button the bottom of your suit jacket... otherwise a great video ;-)

[@williamspringer9447]

T VM•••• This guy didn't even explain the first law of logical reasoning . This video is an appeal to ignorance .

[@louielam3400]

No offensive to Dr. Sadler and how he teaches, but this class should probably be taught in a different way. I really don't like how words are first given and then a definitions is given. The first three words he writes on the black board are words intuitive to everyone, but when he tries to explain it in an alternative way, it confuses people. To me personally, I don't think this is a good way of teaching. What is an argument? A disagreement in ideas between two people. He doesn't have to elaborate about two people being angry at each other. I thought this was ridiculous when I heard it from my teacher who taught this class. Claims? Basically, what the other person is saying. What is he point? His point that he is "arguing" with you. The way he teaches is not very intuitive, because this ideas are intuitive because we experience these things everyday.

[@reasoniocritthinking]

+Louie Lam Yep, it could be taught in a different way. Teaching material is like that. Send me a link to your video series, once you've put together a set of lectures you think teach the material in a better way, and I'll take a look at it

[@Damion00000]

You are aware that the first step of any debate is to define terms?

[@ericmishima]

Louie Lam I can understand your pov but I searched all over and this format fit me the best. sorry :(

[@williamspringer9447]

Louie Lam •••• There is a pattern of deception that I have found in most popular recently published logic texts (and even many older ones) , and videos like this . They don't want to tell their audience that logical arguments MUST be properly supported by solid evidence in order to be logical. I know why they do this . Do you?

[@AlpinAdha]

Thank you so much! i

[@reasoniocritthinking]

You're welcome!

[@youssefmartinez1587]

+Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argumentation (ReasonIO) Your fantastic. I appreciate your videos. I am 20, and I seem to recall that since my early teen years, maybe 14-15 years old, I have watched your videos. It is sometime interesting how a person who I've never met can be a ready go-to source for many answers to many questions. Do you follow any debates? And can I ask what views you hold? Specifically on mind-body dualism, naturalism, atheism/theism. I have been watching debates on the Veritas Forum and some amazing arguments have been made. I am trying to learn more about logic/reasoning so that I can deconstruct various arguments.

[@reasoniocritthinking]

+Youssef Martinez I don't really have the time to follow those sorts of debates, no - I tend to focus much more on the video projects I've got going, the classes I'm developing and teaching, the public speaking, and the research I can sneak in

[@youssefmartinez1587]

I understand. I hope in the near future I can enroll in college and start my studies of philosophy. It would be epic if I wound up learning under you, somehow. Well, I recently started your video about existentialist thinkers, and I'm actually not finished so I'll get back to it! Thanks for the videos.

[@reasoniocritthinking]

Youssef Martinez Well, if you're into online learning, I dedicate a good portion of my teaching these days to institutions that provide high-quality education to students at affordable tuition rates (e.g. $450-500 for a 12 week course).

[@gamingyey8461]

May I know if advocating on a fact a claim?

[@andy101971]

I before e except after c 21:38 )))))) Perceive.

[@jewelkubat3541]

Good

[@marie_pangilinan]

. Great

[@williamspringer9447]

Micro Juju •••• This guy absolutely gutted the science of Logic here ; taught you next to nothing about how to reason logically; and called it "Critical thinkjng" so that he could get away with it . How is that good or great?

[@madumenesheh]

convey this to teaching to god claims, lets know the outcome

[@Damion00000]

you will find yourself at a large circular argument.

[@williamspringer9447]

madu madu•••• The argument for the existence of a creator can be logically presented. Although, what this guy is teaching is not the science of Logic .

[@bottomhead2518]

Batman would win because he's rich, and the rich always screw working class kids like Spiderman. Spiderman needs his friends to gang up on Batman. Then they will win until they forget about the struggle with Batman and think the Dark Knight is now their friend.

[@Damion00000]

that would be entertaining, problem is that it is marxist and I am coming to hate that son of a bitch

[@williamspringer9447]

Damion Monaghan ••••• Ironically , it we had an honest nation gate on the subject , we would have socialized medicine, socialized collegeeducation, and a decent living wage for every worker in the US. The only reason that this country doesn't have a socialist Democratic system of government is corruption .

[@williamspringer9447]

Bottomhead •••• Batman would do a lot better to insure that Spider-Man is never taught the science of Logic in school . He should hire the professor who have this lecture to confuse Spider-Man .

[@Earth-Angel-639]

Non of this matters when laws are made to work against the people, when is justice unjust it’s time to rebel with full force of god EA639

[@RevDevilin]

Comments (0) Ok what's going on here ?

[@williamspringer9447]

Devilin Bilé•••• Claim (0) "Why didn't this professor tell his students that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence, or they are not logical?"

[@ocean911]

wear a double breasted jacket or get a one size larger jacket or just a vest .... duh

[@williamspringer9447]

Bob Smith ••• And start calling this class "keeping the peasants stupid ". That title would make more sense , since you didn't teach your students that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence.

[@Chef-Juice]

So really, critical thinking is just learning common sense.

[@coimbralaw]

Absurd oversimplification. Leave the expertise to the experts, layman.

[@kx4532]

I'm not a smart shopper!

[@vsmith6892]

the beginning made a loud sound that hurt my ears! fix it!

[@nononouh]

17

[@vitoamos2815]

My head ouch !

[@NolomEbal44560]

I wish Dr. Sadler would have provided his internet students a copy of the handout. Just sayin...

[@williamspringer9447]

Nolom Ebal •••• He deceived you enough , without giving you a handout; believe me.

[@JohnZaabi]

This professor is so hot!!!!! what a bear!

[@stivosimz]

sounds like a bunch of jibberish.

[@williamspringer9447]

Steven Simonovic ••••• They like to teach "Critical thinking " because it allows them to subvert reason as they see fit. Teaching the science of Logic is more of a problem because there is thousands of years of literature on the subject . It's too difficult to justify suppressing key principles and law of logical reasoning then .

[@labyrinthofknowledge3.142]

Earth is flat

[@williamspringer9447]

Labyrinth of Knowledge •••••• It you can support that proposition with a cogent argument , I'll carefully consider it . Here's a little information on how to do that . •••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• 'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.' -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••••••••• 'The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.' -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing •••••••••• 'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.' -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••••••••• 'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.' -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

[@MaanIsMe]

And so is your Brain

[@papajay111]

Get a haircut!!!

[@williamspringer9447]

Yeah!! And start telling your students that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence !!

[@papajay111]

@@williamspringer9447 no they DON'T!!!!

[@williamspringer9447]

jay Roberge •••• Yes they do!!!! Here, I'll prove it !!!! •••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• 'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.' -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••••••••• 'The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.' -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing •••••••••• 'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.' -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••••••••• 'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.' -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

[@papajay111]

@@williamspringer9447 you are simply using a "cut and paste" appeal to authority to win an argument. I would have let it go but not one of your "authorities", although legitimate in their own right, actually even argues the case that the evidence you refer to,,,, "empirical" is the only way to construct premises for an argument. For instance " if A is necessary for B then EVERY TIME B,,,, A" :is true. But "if A is sufficient for B then every time B,,,, A" :is false,,,,,,,, NO EMPIRICAL DATA REQUIRED!!!

[@williamspringer9447]

jay Roberge ••• Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened. They believe nonsense because the science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. I'm not trying to win an argument . I'm trying to give valuable information away for nothing .

[@langeveldy]

Lucid exposition.

[@stivosimz]

If you state a claim, it's a fact, or you don't state it. Period. There is no argument if you state facts backed up by real data.

[@Damion00000]

If you state a claim the burden of truth is placed on you to provide evidence that supports your claim. Until you have done so it is not a true nor valid claim. This is important, because without this process you will be deceived by sophists. Arguing your point is something reserved for a free man. Anybody that tells you otherwise is manipulating you.

[@williamspringer9447]

Damion Monaghan •••• I think that you should have given this lecture . That comment was more useful than anything I heard this professor say .

[@williamspringer9447]

Steven Simonovic•••• Logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence or they are not logical . This professor never spoke that simple , ancient a priori law of logic . Why?

[@ExistentialGojora]

This class is slowed down.