How to use Equivalence Schemes | Symbolic Logic Tutorial | Attic Philosophy

[@RenormalizedAdvait]

Thank you for making these timeless contents packed with knowledge and with marvelous intuitive explanations. Thank you again.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks, glad you liked!

[@foodmart5122]

I really appreciate your videos bro keep up the good work!!!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks, will do!

[@Timjstewart]

I've really enjoyed your videos and I have learned some fun and useful tools from your channel. Your presentation of the concepts is very clear and the visuals you use help a lot. Thank you!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks Tim! Glad they've been useful.

[@arik_dev]

Just wanted to say that you're a great teacher! And also, I wish I had taken more logic and philosophy courses in university (I took computer science & physics). There are a lot of shared concepts, but this field gets you thinking about them from a new perspective.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks! Yes there's plenty of overlap, and since you've already got the technical background, there's nothing to stop you learning now (and without exam pressure!)

[@MatPost]

Can you say the same with Whataboutism and Red Herring Fallacy? Great video btw👍

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks! These are both dialectical issues, what are sometimes called informal fallacies, Rather than logical issues. Sometimes, a dialectical issue isn’t a logical problem at all. For example, a circular argument is a dialectical problem, but the inference from a sentence to itself (A |- A) Is perfect from a logical point of view!

[@saradeleonardis4240]

is the 'or' inclusive or exclusive here?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Always inclusive, unless explicitly otherwise

[@smileymarie1677]

Laws of reasoning please

[@AtticPhilosophy]

You use the equivalences listed in the video to transform one sentence (eg, the one left of the equivalence) into another (eg on the right)

[@SidraShoukat-i4n]

Pvq ,q :. P.q

[@AtticPhilosophy]

That’s not a valid inference! p might be false.