4.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition

[@alexagraham7543]

god bless u i'm learning more from ur videos than i have been in 3 hours a week the past 10 weeks

[@pourmeacuppa]

I have attempted to self-teach myself logic using the Hurley text twice. My progress was adequate. These videos are bringing it all together for me. My next stop is modal logic, and I know I can't go forward until I have a better grip on basic logic. Thank you so much for taking the time to make logic available outside of academia!

[@soccerwizard444]

Great vid. Just a suggestion; it'd be quite helpful if you did some of the exercise problems at the end of each section.

[@mariagodinez2868]

The steps for testing immediate inferences really help and make a big difference.. Thanks!

[@ankita.taneja]

Very helpful resource, Thanks for the video. Also, there is a relation I noticed - since truth flows downward, that is why for I and O, one has to be true. And so is the case with false, since it flows upwards that is why for A and E at least one has to be false.

[@MegRickman]

Good visual of the book. I was actually able to learn more From you while following Along in the same book here. Thank you

[@LoveActivist]

You are awesome!!! May you be blessed exponentially!!!

[@xtinehunter]

Great video! Very easy to follow!!

[@joshuatoa8150]

thanks for all your work! I'm a distance learning philosophy student. reading this material only gets me so far... barely pass Ed my test last week, if you consider a 65 passing. Ill be tested on 4-5 this week. I'm sure I'll be doing a lot better now! thanks.

[@nicholasray8208]

I am not in your class, However, I am taking Philosophy: Introduction To Logic for my computer programming path. I have found that your description of these ideas is better than the ones represented in my book which is Logic 4th Edition Concise Edition by Stan Baronett. I have been following along with your interpretation of the thoughts and ideas of Aristotle and George Boole, and I have to say that the way you describe the concepts really helps me understand them in a way that I can interpret. I have been taking notes along the way on my Remarkable 2 (you should check it out if you don't know what that is, it's absolutely amazing). Thank you for keeping these videos up, I love your explanations.

[@belletejana]

so so so helpful!! im taking a 3 week mini fast track intro to philosophy course, this professor's vids are so helpful!!

[@elghunk]

I have also learned using snipping tool from watching your videos!

[@rimasaba]

thanks dude, youre definitely teaching the material a lot better than my prof

[@princiEman]

i am learning a lot from you thank you for posting such great videos. such a big help

[@fidesratio6235]

With regard to the objection that you would have to inspect all plants, as such, in order to verify that they require water, you would have to have a working definition of what "plant" is. If this were the case, such a definition would not speak to accidental qualities, but rather essential ones. To me, this begs the question since one presumes a definition of "plant" which requires essence, in order to deny that essence exists. Thus, if it is part of the essential property of plant to receive water, than that which is examined in theory to not need water cannot properly be called plant. So something fundamental (substantial) has to exist in our mind about plant to even examine it as such to test whether it has as such that essential property.

[@SF6_Modern_Zangief]

A term like 'unicorn' also connotates essential qualities to define what it is, but lacks existential import as it does not denote actual class members that exist. Something like "All plants are things that require water" - regardless of connotation - denotes all class members of plants everywhere that exist. There is no way to verify that. For example, definitions of what a plant is usually includes a reference to the act of photosynthesis (i.e. applicable to all plants everywhere), yet Gastrodia kuroshimensis is a plant that does not photosynthesise.

[@FNAFFAN-yf8dn]

Thank you so much!

[@georgcantor7172]

The traditional square of opposition helps to understand the concept of the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis in randomized, double-blinded controlled studies that are in vogue in the scientific literature nowadays. H(A) would be the Alternative Hypothesis, and H(O) would be the Null Hypothesis. It's no coincidence that the H(A) is exactly the same as the A Statement in Aristotelian logic, and the H(O) is the same as the O statement in Aristotelian logic.

[@karentadei7692]

If truth flows downward could you say that falsity FLOATS upward to make it easy to remember?

[@ultimatereality1000]

OMGGGGG u are a lifee savor....THANK YOU

[@Ryan-qs1jr]

Thanks for the video! If I ever meet you in person I'll buy you a cookie for all your help.

[@shawnellehicks2772]

Thank you!

[@yanetcomesanas7890]

My book says that if a subaltern is false, then its superaltern must be false because any statement that implies a false statement is in itself false- is this correct?

[@caiogbarros]

9:26 What does it mean for both A and E be false? All S are P is False and No S are P is False. Does that imply an empty category? A category with no particulars?

[@caiogbarros]

wait, now I see how it makes sense. If some S are P, but not all, then it's false that All S are P and also it's false that No S are P. Took me a while, but I got it

[@professorjones2902]

Thanks

[@shannon8111]

I think this is the 2nd time you have mentioned losing friends due to logic, must be a problem you have had. Sorry to hear. A good way to solve this in the future is to attach a tracker to them, then you will never lose them no matter how far they move. Just simple logic.

[@Zen-lz1hc]

Like