- Видео 32
- Просмотров 511 555
Let's Get Logical
США
Добавлен 16 мар 2020
Philosophy prof at a college near California's Sierra Nevada. I try to make fun, high-quality philosophy videos for college students, homeschoolers, or anyone wanting to learn about philosophy.
Do you teach logic or philosophy? These videos are for you, too. Feel free to assign in your courses!
Teaching yourself logic? Pick up Paul Herrick's Introduction to Logic (Oxford University Press) and work through it together with the logic videos. Specific chapters are cited in each logic video description.
But the channel covers more than just logic! See the playlists:
Metaphysics-Epistemology-Ethics-Language-Philosophy of Religion-Two Tims Talking Philosophy
Do you teach logic or philosophy? These videos are for you, too. Feel free to assign in your courses!
Teaching yourself logic? Pick up Paul Herrick's Introduction to Logic (Oxford University Press) and work through it together with the logic videos. Specific chapters are cited in each logic video description.
But the channel covers more than just logic! See the playlists:
Metaphysics-Epistemology-Ethics-Language-Philosophy of Religion-Two Tims Talking Philosophy
Timothy Williamson on Knowledge: What is Knowledge?
Quick overview of Timothy Williamson’s “knowledge first” epistemology, including a recap of the traditional analysis of knowledge as justified, true belief (JTB), the Gettier problem, and why Williamson’s “knowledge first” approach may be the best way forward for epistemology.
Appreciate my work? Subscribe!
ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOWvJw
Chapters
0:00 Introduction to Timothy Williamson’s Epistemology
0:20 What is Philosophical Analysis?
0:41 The Traditional Analysis of Knowledge: Explaining Knowledge as Justified, True, Belief (JTB)
1:11 The Gettier Counterexample to the Traditional Analysis of Knowledge
1:27 Williamson’s Response to Gettier: “Knowledge First” (Knowledge Cannot Be A...
Appreciate my work? Subscribe!
ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOWvJw
Chapters
0:00 Introduction to Timothy Williamson’s Epistemology
0:20 What is Philosophical Analysis?
0:41 The Traditional Analysis of Knowledge: Explaining Knowledge as Justified, True, Belief (JTB)
1:11 The Gettier Counterexample to the Traditional Analysis of Knowledge
1:27 Williamson’s Response to Gettier: “Knowledge First” (Knowledge Cannot Be A...
Просмотров: 3 852
Видео
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Flow Chart: Valid vs Invalid, Strong vs Weak, Sound vs Unsound
Просмотров 124 тыс.2 года назад
A logic flowchart of deductive and inductive reasoning, deductive validity, inductive strength, sound arguments and cogent arguments. Examples are given for deductive vs inductive reasoning, valid vs invalid reasoning, strong vs weak reasoning, sound vs unsound reasoning, and cogent vs uncogent reasoning. PDF of the chart available here: drive.google.com/file/d/1r45Dq1hZpJWtkPNeiXm7TOqjuYV6Xv56...
Dissecting Russell's Teapot and The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Просмотров 11 тыс.3 года назад
What does Russell's Teapot show about God's existence? Not much. Same goes for The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Here I explain why. This video is about philosophy of religion and addresses burden of proof arguments, the notion of prior probability (specifically God's prior probability), arguments against God's existence, the argument from evil (i.e. the problem of evil), arguments from analogy, an...
Is There Objective Truth? Or Is Reality Subjective, Or a Social Construct?
Просмотров 8 тыс.3 года назад
A defense of objective reality against arguments that attempt to undermine objective truth. The video explores arguments in favor of subjective reality-or socially constructed reality-and shows how they fail. 0:00 The "mini-world" argument against objective reality (for subjective reality) 1:24 The basics of objectivity 2:39 Belief vs. reality (ontological subjectivity vs. ontological objectivi...
Epistemology of Disagreement | A Short Intro
Просмотров 2,2 тыс.3 года назад
The epistemology of disagreement, especially peer disagreement and its relevance to reasonable belief, has been a central question in social epistemology in recent years. Is it reasonable to hold on to your belief in the face of disagreement? Or is disagreement evidence that you need to revise your belief? Is reasonable disagreement possible? Subscribe! ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOW...
What Is a Cogent Argument | Inductive Reasoning
Просмотров 14 тыс.4 года назад
A short introduction to the concept of a cogent argument in inductive reasoning. An example of a cogent argument is given and the difference between cogent vs sound arguments is discussed. Subscribe! ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOWvJw Further Reading Paul Herrick, Introduction to Logic, Ch. 5, "How To Evaluate an Inductive Argument" (Recommended companion textbook for this channel.) I...
Natural Deduction Proof Example
Просмотров 2,1 тыс.4 года назад
A simple example of a natural deduction proof using basic inference rules: simplification, conjunction, disjunctive syllogism, modus ponens, modus tollens, and addition. This process is called natural deduction and amounts to a proof of validity. Such proofs are a central feature of symbolic logic in philosophy. Your textbook may use different symbols and different names for the rules of infere...
Fact vs Opinion | A Confused Category!
Просмотров 17 тыс.4 года назад
You've been told identifying fact vs. opinion is important to critical thinking. That's a mistake! Here I explain why you should dump the fact vs opinion framework in favor of a more rigorous way of thinking, even though distinguishing between facts and opinions is taught from 2nd grade to middle school to high school. A great classroom discussion for philosophy, critical thinking, or even jour...
Why Abortion Is Wrong | Don Marquis on Abortion
Просмотров 34 тыс.4 года назад
A summary of philosopher Don Marquis's argument for why abortion is wrong. His Future Like Ours (FLO) argument is perhaps the most famous argument in the philosophical literature for why abortion is wrong. Subscribe! ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOWvJw 0:00 Introduction 0:10 The concept of a valuable future 0:43 The fetus has a future like ours 1:47 "Future Like Ours" as an account of ...
Functionalism in Philosophy of Mind | An Easy Introduction
Просмотров 4,8 тыс.4 года назад
An introduction to functionalism in the philosophy of mind, including the concept of multiple realizability and its application to artificial intelligence. Subscribe! ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOWvJw 0:00 Introduction 0:08 Mousetrap as an example of a functional concept 1:20 Diamond as an example of a non-functional concept 1:58 Description of functionalism in the philosophy of mind...
Objections to Moral Relativism | Philosophy
Просмотров 4,9 тыс.4 года назад
A short intro to moral relativism and some objections. Moral relativism is also known as cultural relativism or ethical relativism. Here three objection to moral relativism are explored. Subscribe! ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOWvJw 0:00 Difference between descriptive moral relativism and metaethical moral relativism 2:43 Different kinds of metaethical moral relativism (subjectivism a...
How to Make a Partial Truth Table | Determine Validity
Просмотров 3,1 тыс.4 года назад
Make a partial truth table to determine whether an argument is valid in symbolic logic (propositional logic, sentential logic.) Testing for validity with a full truth table is too slow. Instead, learn how to make a partial truth table. Note: Your textbook may use different symbols for the connectives. It doesn't matter! Determining validity with a truth table in propositional logic (sentential ...
Cosmological Argument | Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
Просмотров 1,6 тыс.4 года назад
An easy overview of the cosmological argument: What explains the universe? Is God the best explanation? Or is the universe a brute fact? And what available answers are there to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Subscribe! ruclips.net/channel/UC1HZgM0cnd4pCWcRxXOWvJw 0:00 Introduction 0:50 Definition of cosmos or universe 1:00 Explanation of necessary vs contingent 2:28...
The Attributes of God | Classical Theism
Просмотров 2,7 тыс.4 года назад
A short intro to the attributes of God according to classical theism. God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Or so says the view known as classical theism.Here God's attributes are described together with some accompanying philosophical problems for omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are also define...
Translating Not Both vs Both Not and Either Not vs Neither
Просмотров 5 тыс.4 года назад
How to translate "Not Both" vs "Both Not" into truth-functional logic as well as "Either Not" vs "Not Either" (i.e. "Neither") into truth-functional symbolic logic. For your logic class or LSAT prep. These are difficult translations from English into logical expressions of sentential logic (propositional logic). But any logic student should have a firm grasp of how to translate"not both" vs "bo...
Bullshit, Truth, and Lies | Harry Frankfurt
Просмотров 9 тыс.4 года назад
Bullshit, Truth, and Lies | Harry Frankfurt
Puzzles of Material Constitution in Philosophy
Просмотров 2,3 тыс.4 года назад
Puzzles of Material Constitution in Philosophy
Natural Deduction Proof Help | Go Hunting!
Просмотров 7084 года назад
Natural Deduction Proof Help | Go Hunting!
Natural Deduction Proof Help | Build and Break!
Просмотров 1,2 тыс.4 года назад
Natural Deduction Proof Help | Build and Break!
Natural Deduction Proof Help | Work Backward!
Просмотров 1 тыс.4 года назад
Natural Deduction Proof Help | Work Backward!
Natural Deduction Proofs: The Basics
Просмотров 3,1 тыс.4 года назад
Natural Deduction Proofs: The Basics
Truth-Function Basics | Intro to Truth-Functional Logic
Просмотров 7 тыс.4 года назад
Truth-Function Basics | Intro to Truth-Functional Logic
How to Determine if an Argument is Valid | Counterexample Method
Просмотров 7 тыс.4 года назад
How to Determine if an Argument is Valid | Counterexample Method
What is a Sound Argument? | Deductive Soundness Explained
Просмотров 11 тыс.4 года назад
What is a Sound Argument? | Deductive Soundness Explained
What Is Valid vs. Invalid? | Deductive Reasoning
Просмотров 36 тыс.4 года назад
What Is Valid vs. Invalid? | Deductive Reasoning
What Is Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning | Deductive vs Inductive Arguments
Просмотров 112 тыс.4 года назад
What Is Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning | Deductive vs Inductive Arguments
Logic is just sentence connector, actual reasoning is about ruling out alternatives
Thank you thank you thank you!!
thank you
😎And, i wanna add more points that the personal god of theism is not the exact same thing as the god of the abrahamic religions, because the god of the abrahamic religions has specific attributes like making a covenant with specific types of people, and communicating through chosen prophets. So when most people think of theism. They're usually referring to the god of abrahamic religions.
If you're a believer in an Abrahamic religion, then it follows you're a theist. But if you're a theist, it does not follow that you're a believer in an Abrahamic religion.
@@LetsGetLogical 😎Exactly. One can be a theist without subscribing to the abrahamic religions.
Calm voice is always better, for sinking in
I love how you make it so easy to understand. I was having difficulty understanding the differences between sound and cogent deductive or non-deductive arguments. Thanks to your map, seeing it this way makes it literally, common sense lol Thank you for sharing <3
I took logic twice because I failed it the first time. I wish I had seen this video during my first go round. I think I would have passed. Simple and easy to understand. Ty.
I had a Socratic dialouge with Google Gemini and this is the conclusion i reached I had it summarize one of many key points I made Our understanding of the world is fundamentally based on this principle: we define objects by the properties of their potential. A seed is defined by its potential to become a tree, a bullet by its potential to be fired. This isn't just semantics; it's how we make sense of reality. We assign value and purpose based on what something is meant to do or become. The abortion debate hinges on this very principle. To deny the potential of a fetus to become a human being is a direct contradiction of this fundamental principle. Why is a fetus an exception to the rule? If we can arbitrarily decide that its potential doesn't matter, then we are admitting that our values are not based on any objective truth, but on convenience and personal preference. This isn't simply about being "pro-life" or "pro-choice." It's about logical consistency. If we define objects by the properties of their potential, then we must apply that principle universally. To do otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of our values and create a society where morality is fluid and subjective, ultimately leading to instability and vulnerability. We cannot ignore fundamental truths just because they are inconvenient. A society that disregards the potential of the unborn is a society that has lost its way, operating on arbitrary whims rather than sound principles. The government's role is to protect its citizens, and that includes those who are most vulnerable. In a society that truly understands and respects the principle of potential, that protection must extend to the unborn. To do otherwise is not only morally wrong but a clear and dangerous logical fallacy.
❤❤❤
Thank you for sharing this video. Hope to watch more videos from you. Have a Great Day. Greetings from our Family - Kapiso Mo Vlog 4:38
Why would anything we do matter to an allmighty eternal being? I believe that it really doesn't matter if a god exists anyway, so case closed for me. After all we'll find out if we want to or not, without any way of reporting back on what actually happens. So see for yourselves.
tank you
This helped to clear these terms up for me. Thanks!
You should assign the laughably low probability of a powerful benevolent god since there is so much evidence of the contrary. But the burden of proof argument does stand, if you have no proof or even evidence you have no business making the statement. This is different from the argument you are disagreeing with, where the burden of proof seems to be on proving something does not exist. The burden of proof is on whoever is claiming that something does exist. As religions have no such proof, or even repeatable, observable evidence, they fail the burden of proof.
@BeerStein If someone concludes the probability of God's existence is laughably low _given the total evidence_ , then my argument is not aimed at them. My argument is aimed at people who think the _default starting point_ should be a laughably low probability for God's existence. That's the kind of poor thinking the FSM and Teapot encourage.
@@LetsGetLogical You are still missing the point. Unless the people claiming the existence have evidence they have no business making the claim. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim, no one needs to prove the negative.
@@BeerStein I’m not really all that interested in what Russell meant or what his “real point” was. That would be an interest in history or biography or even psychology. But this is a philosophy channel and I'm interested in philosophy. So the question I’m addressing in the video is, “What value-if any-does Russell’s Teapot (or the FSM) have for shedding light on difficult philosophical questions?” The answer: Not much at all. And independent of what Russell meant, the Teapot and FSM are as a matter of fact frequently trotted out to make a point about the justification of belief in God. In such cases, they fail.
Look. I won’t abort because I don’t want to and it goes against my beliefs. But IDGAF if someone else wants to abort. It’s their body and their choice. What if a child had to go through a forced birth knowing they would die. It isn’t a baby yet, it’s a foetus. There’s a difference
But how are we to tell when our beliefs "match" reality and when they don't? Aren't we always under the impression that our beliefs "match" reality, and yet, don't we also reserve the right to change our mind? Yes, it sure seems like there is a "reality independent of humans," but the point is that this reality has nothing to do with epistemology: We don't believe as we do BECAUSE those beliefs are "objective," but rather BECAUSE we find those beliefs justified by way of our experience. So the critique is not so much that "objective reality can be carved up in different ways," but rather the realization that its just a pretense that we can tell the difference between an "objective" belief and a "subjective" belief, which is why difference doesn't matter.
Great work! Very simple and straightforward! Thank you.
So, men CAN be women after all?
@KelliAnnWinkler How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Super exciting tutorial 🎉 I wish if there was a questions at the end.
This is way better than boring classes for WGU thank you I hate college
This is kinda horrifying to be honest. Just the idea of the truth could be an opinion. Like what is even reality? Am I even real or am I just apart of someone's comatose hallucination? 🤯🤯🤯
Oneness, Non Duelity, Duelity, Pluralism This Says that In the Absolute Sense Nothingness Is Like Pure Emptyness But Of All In All
A ^ B v C is WFF ?
So clear thanks
If it's wrong, then you are pro choice After all, during the decades of roe v wade, abortion rates went DOWN. AND, it's just as wrong for the government to steal a womans life and body and force her to give birth. THEREFORE, if both options are wrong, allow women to decide. I believe in women. It is such a huge important decision, it is immoral and ungodly for me to decide what a woman should to do. As a Christian, i cant blatantly sin against God by taking over women's bodies.
Amen 🙏
You are awesome god bless you❤ let's go to the exam💃
Good luck!
Incorrect definition of atheist. A theist is someone who holds a belief in a deity, an A-theist is someone who does NOT hold a belief in a deity. All agnostics are atheist because they do not hold a belief in a deity. There can be gnostic (profess knowledge) atheists who make the positive claim that no deities exist, and there are agnostic (does not profess knowledge) atheists who are not convinced that any deities exist but don't make a positive claim that one does not exist. This is not my only complaint about this video and the INSANE claims that it makes, but since it applies to me I figured I would correct that one thing.
That's the internet definition. And you're welcome to use it in that Reddit sort of way. But it's useful for people to know that in academic circles the more rigorous definition is used for the reasons explained in the video. Good definitions preserve important distinctions.
Just for all you Christians in the comments :) Numbers 5:16-22
Super interesting! I was unaware of this passage. I wonder how a Christian would respond?
@LetsGetLogical they pretty much just ignore it
it mega pisses me off my professor linked some sh!!t videos explaning this stuff when this video was sitting pretty right here
You will never know so long as you are stuck in thought.
I believe the FSM is the god of Reddit midwits, just as Dawkins is their pope.
im still confused and i have taken a test that includes all of this 8 times already and thinking that college is not for me because of all th countless hours that i have invested in this one class and i hear it not the hardest class in my degree 🙃
Yes, many people find it difficult. You're not alone! If it turns out college is not for you, remember that many, many people carve out a good life for themselves in other ways. For instance, one of my friends is a plumber and another is a corrections officer. They both make much more money than I do. Best wishes.
@@LetsGetLogical yes, sometimes i feel like that like im in way over my head but i want to surprise my parents and make them proud of this black sheep. im going to study 8 hours everyday until i get it even if it kills me😅
God is uniquely unique… LOL! God is not just unique… You’re saying God is even more unique that that! What are you talking about? The probability of Russell’s teapot or Henderson’s “flying spaghetti monster” existing is not “laughably low” but zero! They don't exist! But - as you cannot prove they don’t exist therefore by default they must exist. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist therefore he must exist by default. However, you can look at the history of Russell’s teapot (it was made up by Bertrand Russell) and the history of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (it was made up by Bobby Henderson) so we know that they don’t exist. We can also trace the history of God the same way. He is described in the Bible written within 3000 year ago. The Bible has no citations; it really is blind faith if you believe in it. Before the Bible was written, nobody knew or heard of the current God. He simply didn’t exist! People believed in other Gods, many of them now forgotten. ‘God’ is the latest of a long line of Gods that people believed in (and some still believe in) along with Russell’s teapot and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
@leonardmills5003 Happy to explain. I stole the idea of God being "uniquely unique" from philosopher William Vallicella. It means that God’s uniqueness goes beyond the uniqueness of ordinary things. While created beings can be unique within categories (e.g. a unique work of art, or a unique idea), God’s uniqueness transcends all categories. At bottom is the idea that God is not just one being among many but the source of all being, existing in a fundamentally different way. Thus, God's uniqueness is distinct in a way that no other being's uniqueness can match. Thus, _uniquely unique_ . Of course, you needn't agree with any of this. Even some theists disagree with this view. But it's a thoughtful view that can't simply be LOL'd away. In fact, you've proved the point of the video: the Teapot and FSM should be dropped by atheists because they encourage people to try to LOL their way to philosophical victory. But this is not the way. Rigorous argument is needed.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster most definitely exists. I know because He touches me with His Noodly Appendage every night
Hello. I'm new to this channel and new to these types of discussions. I would like to ask you some questions. Is it possible?
Ask away! My time is limited but I'll try to be helpful.
I guess I lack the ability to absorb what this video is positing. Is the video arguing a spin of subjectivism? Where all facts (truths) are subjective?
Thank you for the precise,great description ! I believe it will do wonders for my critical thinking midterm today.
No there is only 7…object because the other one didn’t see all the possibilities but if he sees it as it really is he will see 7object a bikini 👙 is one object made of 2 but no one says it’s 2object therefore the dude thinking there is 3object is on the wrong
Good night beautiful word thank you very much let's get logical thank you❤😂😂❤ good night before thank you very much❤❤❤🌎🌎🌎💯💯🤣🤣🤣🤣 I think I have too many people behind the screen just listen to me maybe it's only two😂😂😂😂
So good. Excellent explanation
This is just if/then information theory. While it is logical. I don't think it properly addresses the broader question of "what is logic". It is simply one example of something that is logical. albeit incredibly useful in programing and relevent.
Interesting comment.If I understand you correctly, I agree with your claim that I've presented logic as only the systematic study of the _relationships_ between statements. And I agree that's rather narrow. But I disagree with your claim that's a problem. Logic is not general inquiry. It's not the broad search for truth. It's the systematizing of one mode of getting at the truth-i.e., making correct inferences from known truths.
All I know is experience. I do not exist as an egoic entity separate from experience. Objective?, subjective?, What is this duality of which you speak? Namaste.
My truth is what I say?
Best to avoid the phrase "my truth" or "your truth". It's more clear and precise to say "What I believe to be true" or "What you believe to be true".
I like abstract things, and movies, and good food... but this video topped them all... I've never been so hooked by any video... I'm so grateful to have found your channel and to have been enriched with this knowledge. And to see objective reality more clearly. In which you are a great youtuber "for me" :)
And how does one see objective reality more clearly? If there is no experience of objective reality, then does it matter whether it exists or not? How can anything objective be known when there is no objective experience?
Helpful, thanks.
Excellent explanation - thanks!
your videos save me SO MUCH TIME, thank you so much!
🛂🌏👤☯️🌌👣
This was awesome