I love your video. I'm taking a philosophy course and I was so confused on what the meaning of valid and invalid deductive reasoning meant , until I seen this video. You explained it a whole lot better. Thank you.
@jjay11a7 жыл бұрын
I like to think of the premises & conclusions in syllogisms in terms of Venn diagrams. Example 1: Premise 1: "All actors are robots" (draw circle labeled 'actors', and shade 100% of it to indicate all it as robot-filled) Premise 2:"Tom Cruise is an actor" (given we're told Tom Cruise is an actor, find his place in circle) Conclusion: "Tom Cruise is a robot" (upon looking at the 'actor' circle, which is 100% robot shaded, it's logical to conclude Tom's secret identity) Example 2: Premise 1: "All actors are robots" (draw circle labeled 'robots', and inside shade a small area for 'actors') Premise 2:"Tom Cruise is a robot" (given we're told Tom Cruise is a robot, find his place in circle) Conclusion: "Tom Cruise is an actor" (upon looking at the 'robot' circle, which only has a part shaded for actors, it would NOT be logical to definitively conclude Tom is an actor, when there exist possibility he could be something else)
@fatimahhabeeb35112 жыл бұрын
omg that is so helpful thank you!!!
@dheerajrinwa25858 жыл бұрын
Best video on arguments. Thanks.
@haeatawatson22917 жыл бұрын
OK, I don't get this. You say at 1:47 that "IF all the premises are true, then the conclusion CANNOT be false." Then you say, "IF all the premises are true, then the conclusion CAN be false." Which one is it?
@haza123b43 жыл бұрын
*Those are descriptions of valid and invalid arguments respectively.*
@anointedfeet81142 жыл бұрын
I swear I thought the same thing, which is it?
@DoubleDee167 жыл бұрын
I have test over this tomorrow and it fucks with my head so much
@isaiahwilson89128 жыл бұрын
Great Video my friend it really help me comprehend the difference between a valid and invalid argument!!!!
@David-xy2zu10 жыл бұрын
This is explained SO much better than in my textbook or by my professor. Thanks a lot!
@marialaureano33349 жыл бұрын
The best video I could find!! Thank you!
@pandotpira7 жыл бұрын
in categorical syllogism simply look for the three categories in their proper place. (category 1) (category 2) (category 3) (category 1) (category 3) (category 2) example (c1 robots) are (c2 actors) (c3 tom cruise) is a (c1 robot) (c3 tom cruise) is an (c2 actor) c1 = robot c2 = actor c3 = tom cruise example all gods are mortals men are gods men are mortals or all men are gods mortals are men mortals are gods or mortals are men gods are mortals gods are men all these are valid arguments as long as the categories are in their right places.
@logangomez44756 жыл бұрын
I'm having trouble with the symbols and propositional argument forms.
@olexiynagirny30174 жыл бұрын
It's a very nice explanation.
@alexzheng33944 жыл бұрын
THANKS!
@chartphred110 жыл бұрын
Ok, here's what I DON"T get! If the first example says that All actors are robots and Tom Cruise is an Actor therefore he's a robot, we know is actually not true, yet we assume it is in the context of this argument... so why can we not assume similar things in the second argument where it might be that 'All Actors a robots'... I mean we know that its not true in both cases yet the example in the second one says invalid... that makes no sense to me.
@am10117110 жыл бұрын
On the second example, it is also assumed that all actors are robots, to evaluate its validity. The problem is that,different from the first argument, the 2nd premise of the 2nd argument, states that Tom cruise is a robot (not an actor), so even if the two premises were true, the conclusion would not follow. For instance, it could be that Tom cruise was not an actor , but a bell boy , and yet a robot. In the 1st argument such exception does not exist, if all actors are robots and Tom Cruise is an actor, then, he must be a robot. Hope that helps.
@chartphred110 жыл бұрын
am101171 Yes Thank you for that. Greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain. Cheers,
@fredostefano8645 Жыл бұрын
@@chartphred1 I’m still confused
@fredostefano8645 Жыл бұрын
Idk if I’m overthinking or something
@DarkfairyCT11 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@TheMoralHeathen11 жыл бұрын
Amen to that.
@mollie281011 жыл бұрын
Great tutorial. (Tom Cruise is a RONbot though ;) )
@International_Friendlies_2024 Жыл бұрын
Perfect
@haileluel77484 жыл бұрын
some premises are valid ? true or false?
@dagmtamratgebreselassiedag43462 жыл бұрын
Nice job
@aphililesigcau94987 жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot for the video
@pandotpira7 жыл бұрын
Kevin deLaplante is a logic teacher Batman is Kevin deLaplante Batman is a logic teacher this is also valid
@TylerVanzo10 жыл бұрын
strongness=soundness?
@Ataraxia-vz5vx9 жыл бұрын
Sorry to resurrect your thread, but that's just the kind of guy I am. 8) Strongness is a feature of contingent/inductive arguments, and is comparable to the validity check of a deductive argument, in that we are trying to determine how well the premesis link to the conclusion (assuming for now the premesis are true). For now we're just checking the form of the argument and aren't too concerned about whether individual terms really are true or false. Knowing the formal fallacies can help at this juncture. If we aren't using fuzzy terms like 'most', 'some', '75%', and so on in our argument, then we check the arguments validity by seeing if all the premesis evaluate to true and the conclusion evaluates to true, using boolean logic on the atomic/molecular terms. If it meets this check, it's deductive/valid/tautology and conclusion is guaranteed *not to be flawed by the form of the argument*; if not, it's invalid (read: conclusion not guaranteed) and inductive (provided it's not a logical self contradiction). If it's inductive you have to gauge the strength or weakness of the argument using the fuzzy terms (or mountains of scientific data, whatever floats yer boat). At this point if we're confident in the reliability of the form of the argument, we check the premesis to see how good the truth values measure up to reality. Knowledge of the informal fallacies helps here. If it's your own argument, you can go back and check the arguments that gave you the premesis for your main argument; if not, guesstimate their worth. If it passes muster, then it's called *sound* if it's the deductive variety, or *cogent* if of the inductive sort; 'unsound' or 'uncogent' if something smells fishy. There's some good videos on methods to check validity. Search for 'Truth Trees' or 'Reductio Proof'
@lesliecampos18765 жыл бұрын
Great!!
@jahzielpoh Жыл бұрын
hmm.. I still don't understand.
@originalsniping44364 жыл бұрын
Thx
@fevabebe21312 жыл бұрын
I like his voice 😍😍😂
@theboss34945 жыл бұрын
you're the man
@Maid_Sate6 жыл бұрын
Lol, "or politicians..."
@haileluel77484 жыл бұрын
HI Kevin your vedio is important so pless answer me for some my questions
@wetsaw29404 жыл бұрын
So is evolution theory an invalid argument?
@raoulmaestro9933 жыл бұрын
U've saved my GPA
@pandotpira7 жыл бұрын
rose is not blue violet is not rose violet is blue
@1stMusic6 жыл бұрын
wrong
@engpohchiam4 ай бұрын
Hi I want to be a KZbinr
@nofx7145 жыл бұрын
still does not make sense.
@mrdave21127 жыл бұрын
What you do not understand is if a equals b and b equals c, a does not equal c. Valid arguments are not valid. Truth is not always what people have been taught and some believe all valid arguments are valid simply because they were taught that.