A Crash Course in Formal Logic Pt. 3

Рет қаралды 34,680

PhilHelper

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 72

@suqilin9460 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks from 2022. Your teaching is so great! I just realized that I've been fed up with uncogent or unsound conclusions

@drbirtles 9 жыл бұрын

I've been studying logic for years, yet I still find myself coming right back to the start to learn it all again. Brilliant video sir.

@jenniferbabila6956 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales! Thanks for this Video PhilHelper!

@analaraavengoza1816 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

@arramaygonzales6033 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thanks for the video PhilHelper!

@rosalynpadayao5488 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

@eulaloumoronabombales4501 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Maam Joy Cerjulas. Thank you for this video, PhilHelper!.

@hanicajanearabaca9371 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!👍

@angelinerobles4249 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Mam Joy P. Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper!.

@marianebethapa8802 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching. Ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper.

@maryjanesanjose5197 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!🙂

@benefecasseybriones6495 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thanks for this video PhilHelper!

@elghunk 10 жыл бұрын

The videos (1 and 2 and probably the rest) have great sound and nice illustrations. I really enjoying watching these as repetition.

@beselceles1620 3 жыл бұрын

"done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

@kylamaebaynas5849 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper! :)

@PeteGoode 8 жыл бұрын

Do you have any downloadable "hand outs" that would be available. GREAT material, btw!

@PhilHelper 8 жыл бұрын

Sure. Email me at easyintro2phil@gmail.com and I'll shoot you any you request.

@tambovlogs5406 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales , Thanks for this video, Philhelper.

@avilaabegail661 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching,Mam Joy Cerujales,Thankyou for this video,Philhelper!

@chrizzamaeabuque2818 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching ma'am, Joy Cerujales. Thanks for this video PhilHelper

@morepractice 10 жыл бұрын

Thank you Phil. Took a course on this once your videos made that information useful again.

@marygracetagun520 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Maam joy Cerjuales, Thankyou for this video. Philhelper !

@honeylynfrancisco7478 3 жыл бұрын

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video,

@dynaaprilfrias3338 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

@buenaventejohnchristopherc1089 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhiHelper.

@blesslydelovino7129 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thankyou for this video, Philhelper

@mellamanborrego8299 4 ай бұрын

Watching this to supplement formal logic by Forallx...why does this make so much sense, but validity in my book doesn't? Thanks profe

@carenbrondo3627 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales thank you for this video ,,Philhelper

@borissman 8 жыл бұрын

Hey Phill, if deductive arguments evaluate to 100% or 0% truthiness, and inductive arguemtns can have any level of certainty, then i have a question: What if i had an inductive argument where it just so happens that all premises are full 100%. Would that still be an inductive or deductive argument?

@PhilHelper 8 жыл бұрын

It depends on what you mean by "all premises are full 100%." If you mean that there is no possibility of the premises being true if the conclusion isn't, then it's deductive. If you mean that the premises are certain to be true, it could be either. An inductive inference can be made from very true premises. Example: "All men who have drank a liter of cyanide have died. (very true!) Therefore, the next man who drinks a liter of cyanide will die. (very likely)"

@genevievesclawy1812 7 жыл бұрын

thank you!!! where can I find the exercises??

@andreamayadan738 3 жыл бұрын

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper

@dalyabreem4949 2 жыл бұрын

I'm literally crying I'm taking a course called Intro to Logic and Critical thinking and I'm very losttt! I needd helpp please!!!

@sheilamaepatlingrao5757 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching maam joy cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper

@bonbonpony 6 жыл бұрын

13:25 Soo if in a valid argument we come to a conclusion that we know is false for sure, does it tell us that our premises were necessarily false? (Well, maybe not _all_ of them, but at least _one_ of them?)

@PhilHelper 6 жыл бұрын

Yup.

@Yuuiiytrfbh 7 жыл бұрын

Thanks again!! These are well done!

@emilyannesnipes4561 9 жыл бұрын

Where can I find the excercises?

@ramirezailyn7908 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales 💓

@jomararana1418 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching maam Joy P. cerujales thankyou for this video, Philhelper"

@justinpwheeler 7 жыл бұрын

Phil I am lost on how the Caribbean swim argument is weak (uncogent). It seems with the premises that the inference is strong. It wasn't until later that the possibility was added that there might be dangerous activity in the water. I'm having a hard time seeing the connection for why it would be weak as I would have called it a strong, cogent argument at face value. Thank you for the videos. They're very helpful.

@6Uncles 6 жыл бұрын

The principle of total evidence says that you must have all the relevant formation to make the correct inference. If you're making a decision or follow a line of reason without including the fact that there's a shark in the water or some other danger, then that's weak.

@6Uncles 6 жыл бұрын

It's not that dangers were added later... They were there at the start, but if u failed to include them in the argument, then that violate total evidence and thus weak

@gedde5703 5 жыл бұрын

@@6Uncles But cannot that then be said of anything? How can we be sure that we have included EVERYTHING in our inductive argument? And how can we decide that an inductive argument is strong or weak based on what we've left out? Must we then know everything regarding that which surrounds our argument before we can make a strong case? We might be ignorant of the things we've left out, in which case we might have to discard our current understanding of the conclusion if new evidence is discovered. But what I am wondering is how can we know that an argument is inductively weak or strong if we've filtered out the different variables we are ignorant of. These are not rhetorical questions by the way, I am legitimately wondering. Thanks in advance.

@Johnhasa1 2 жыл бұрын

@@gedde5703 did you figure it out?

@Johnhasa1 2 жыл бұрын

@@gedde5703 it seems to me that the carribian beach example assumes that the claimant KNEW about the dangerous animal, but DELIBERATELY chose not to add that into his argument for the safety of that sea.

@marylilmila8848 3 жыл бұрын

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thankyou for this video, Philhelper!

@LeTrianon1 9 жыл бұрын

So frustrating that the end of every one of these awesome videos promises exercises, but I can't find them!

@PhilHelper 9 жыл бұрын

nono Good point. I've been lazy! But I'll hop on it soon :-)

@PeteGoode 8 жыл бұрын

+PhilHelper I could help you put the "exercises" together. (designer, developer)

@PhilHelper 8 жыл бұрын

Cool. Email me anything that comes to your mind. I'm at easyintro2phil@gmail.com

@PeteGoode 8 жыл бұрын

well, what I meant was, as a graphic designer / developer, I can help you do the layout of existing content in the event you need that done. Granted, I do that kind of thing for an income. :-)

@giorgioumberto 7 жыл бұрын

me too!

@NFLEAGLES11 10 жыл бұрын

This is so helpful

@PhilHelper 10 жыл бұрын

Glad to be of service!

10 жыл бұрын

All this talk of logic and reason, seems on the face of it, plausible; but when I think of the BIG picture, we all seem like floundering incompetents, never able to achieve an understanding deeper than our immediate locality. Let me explain a bit: We live in a Universe that we have no idea if it started or always was. No clue. We live in a Universe that we have no idea if it is finite in size of if it is infinite in size. We live in a Universe that we have no idea if there is a smallest piece of matter or if it is infinitely divisible. These are but a few glaring examples of our ignorance- but it's more than just ignorance- we have to consider what is POSSIBLE to be known, and what is NOT. But worse than that, even if we did know the answers to any of the above, none of them would make any sense to us. If the Universe began, that makes no sense. Began out of what? And if the 'what' was already there, like the so-called singularity, then there goes the entire theory of a beginning. If the Universe never began, but just always was, it is as undefined as the notion of a god with similar qualities, and is therefore equally mysterious and inexplicable. Even if there was a God who never had a beginning, He could not explain his own existence. If the Universe is finite in size, then that means there is an end, or a barrier. That makes no sense- what's it barring? What's on the other side? If the Universe is infinite in size, then it can never be known, short of traveling infinite space over infinite time, and even then it can never be known. Ever. We are limited as to what we can know, and therefore our logic, reason and so-called truth have limits as well. How can we be sure we know what we claim we do? I think we need a dose of humility before we go around touting a formula for obtaining truth. First, we must ask ourselves if such a truth is even obtainable. So my point is that we live in an incomprehensible Universe. What makes us think there is such a thing as logic, reason, and truth? Is it just that our logic, reason, and so-called truth are merely products of localized, isolated and provincial beings who think they have it sorted out, but have no idea just how far off they are? Perhaps our tools of logic and reason get us by here on this one planet, but we should be wary before projecting that upon the entirety of the unknown.

9 жыл бұрын

Mega.Dope.Beatz Man. You are just to thick to understand EITHER of my comments. You're a waste of my time.

@bonbonpony 6 жыл бұрын

+2eelShmeal: Your comment doesn't contain any logical argument, only a failed attempt at being philosophical (in the bad sense of that word, meaning deconstructing everything into pieces that don't make any sense anymore and treating it as if it were some insightful discovery with deep implications on the nature of the universe).

@tacodeazul1713 5 жыл бұрын

Better not use "logic, reason, and truth" to make your case here. Funny how people will oppose the mechanics of logic by listing premises, a conclusion, and defending each of their statements with tenacity. "Logic doesn't work, because of X,Y,Z."