"You shouldn't be disappointed if someone presents a counter-argument you cannot find the answer to." Good luck convincing the people of the RUclips comments about that
NO, ITS ABOUT WINNING. I DONT CARE ABOUT BEING CORRECT OR GETTING MOAR SMARTERER I CARE ABOUT WINNING. Premise 1: I care about winning, not getting smarter and closer to the truth. Premise 2: An intelligent person cares about getting smarter and closer to the truth. Conclusion: I am not an intelligent person.
I love "arguments" like this. I will openly admit I might be wrong and I don't know everything. How could I or anyone ever learn anything. I almost like to be wrong so I learn more and more. Just my opinion. 😊❤❤❤❤
LiwenDiamond People often approach a discussion thinking they hold the absolute truth and seek to convince others, which makes them impossible to argue with. I'd quote the pigeon playing chess analogy, but I'll assume you've already heard it somewhere.
LiwenDiamond "Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious."
+n8thegr8 Let's start then. - I don't think the world would become a utopia if random people on the internet would argue like that, for the influence of internet arguments are very slim.
There is no premise or data to back up the conclusion that internet arguments are not easily influenced. I revert back to the original proposition that arguing with a philosopher's mindset would be Utopian.
Me and my step dad had a 5 hour Philosophical debate on Morals, human thought, philosophy, the origin of the universe, the state of our government, and love for one another. It was fucking beautiful and forever changed me.
Dhillon Dhass Usually some Alcoholic Beverages. And the aroma of a beautiful flower! It always starts out as regular conversation and then you start sharing things you've seen and then you come up with your own! I've been doing it a lot lately. Me and my friend Collin had a good conversation last night.
Dhillon Dhass It had a lot to do with personal/instinctive barriers (Defense Mechanisms) we set in our minds to protect us from physical/emotional harm. Me and him both said things we wouldn't want to just to let each other know what we thought. Even if it was better if we kept them to ourselves. But we understood it was "Just a thought".
Dhillon Dhass Nothing weird just like he asked me if it was ok to start a relationship with a girl that I had a chance with and I said it was fine but the more he talked about her the more I liked her. Got into metaphysics and religion. And I told him how I felt about her but not to worry. You go get it man. I had failed. Its your turn to be happy.
There are a lot of kids online. My little brother argues like that. me: "I really like this movie" brother:"This movie sucks" me:"why?" brother:"Lol. You stupid."
Lmao your comment is 3 years ago but well I just want to say this xD We have a debate on the next few days and I'm preparing myself how to present a correct argument and yeah, I learned so much from this video and the thing about that debates are not only about winning. It's also about finding the truth, just like what was said in the video.
kaleidoscope colors ••• This video didn't mention that the science of classical logic is used in criminal courts every day to decide matters of life and death . And the standard of proof in a criminal court is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also didn't mention that our State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
I love how youtube's recommendation engine works: - I've watched Crash Course Philosophy #1, #2, #3, in order. - RUclips: May I interest you in Crash Course Philosophy #32, #6, #38, #36, #25 or the Crash Course Philosophy Playlist?
i thought i was crazy. but this is how i've thought, this is my thought process. i don't have an education, so philosophy wasn't an option for me. the opportunity wasn't on the table for me to learn. i'm 34 now and once coronavirus is over, if it ever is im going to attend UC and i'm going to going to get a degree, i understand everything these videos are teaching me and they are a god send. this is maybe the happiest i have ever been in my life.
I quite HS in 10th grade. No GED. Can't do math (I have learning disabilities anyway), but I've started reteaching myself website design. I've taken up writing again and decided to watch the crash courses on Philosophy, History of Science, and US History. Study Skills next and then Literature and Psychology or Media Literacy (maybe World Mythology). YOU CAN DO IT!! I'll never officially continue my education but when others do I cheer them on with all I have!!!
robyn marshall •••• This video didn't mention some pretty crucial information about logical reasoning. It didn't explain how to determine if an inductive argument is cogent or a deductive argument sound . It never explained that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence. Why do you suppose that is ? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that our State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
@@williamspringer9447 they actually tackle what you highlighting here in video number 2, how to argue. it focuses on logical reasoning, fallacies, and how to present a proper argument.
@@mystic_tacos fantastic man, im happy for you too. i've flirted with going back to school myself, i'm quite happy in my life at the moment and i'm very happy to hear you are pretty much the same. i don't know what learning disabilities you have, but you are truly a strong person to be tackling so much. it would be a pleasure to say that if no one is proud of you i am. be safe out there tiger :D
It's not about eras or countries, it's about who you interact with. Pretty sure when two illiterate farmers in ancient Greece got into an argument, they wouldn't use much logic. And if you hang out with the right people - in meatspace or offline - in this day and age, they'll resolve differences with you via logical argument.
+Rowan Evans No they don't the keep on arguing forever when real people solve the real problems. You hear philosophers debate on hunger and how unjust it is. But most are too dumb to go out and engineer solutions to these issues, hence: ENGINEERS AND EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS WE SOLVE THE WORLD PROBLEMS!
Raymond Doetjes I didn't say "philosophers", I said "the right people". It could have just as easily referred to two engineers talking about the correct design for a bridge. That said, your complaint about philosophy is kind of inane - when people in one speciality spend their time on that speciality instead of completely different ones, it's because they're too dumb, therefore philosophy doesn't do anything useful?
Rowan Evans What has philosophy given us the last 30 years that improved or drastically changed our lives for the better? And what has empirical science and engineering given us? I dare say that philosophy did not change our lives that much (if at all). Therefore hard science and engineering is more important for mankind's advances. And I do see you have a hard time getting sarcasm too ;)
+Raymond Doetjes It certainly didn't give us nuclear bombs,guns,consumerist society without art and spirituallity(not religious sense),list goes on....
This was an abundant of wonderful information in under just 10 minutes. On 07:49 his hair is changed from drawn back to front and the undershirt from black to grey. Then in returns to normal in 08:12. This goes to show you how much time is invested in such short clips and that it probably took more than one day to shoot. Thank you for the great work guys!
seeing this mans hair go from well combed to messy to back to well combed was the second best part of this video. The first being his position on peanut m&m’s
Seamless editing, especially of sound and keeping the narration consistent despite multiple hairstyle changes. The animation is superb. I love your videos, they are very engaging. Thank you!
+CrashCourse ...Are We Soon Going To Get Physics Videos Here Soon ...Because Am So Excited ...Been a Subscriber For 4 Years ...Never I Been So Excited For Physics
I love using the Socratic Method in every day discussions. It drives my significant other crazy because I tend to also breakdown her points to find out what her reasoning is behind each one.
It's been an honor to converse with many whom I've come across. When curiously and patiently picking at another's thoughts and asking them the deeper questions in pure pursuit of insight and understanding, even the hostile and seemingly "lost" types will begin opening up and interacting with you on a different level, and you part ways with a new respect for each other; further enlightened.
+GODOFHELLFIRE3 This is far more objective in nature. School of Life has been shoving their opinion into every philosophy since the start, and that can be excused to a degree, but lately it's just been a propoganda channel.
The interesting thing about the Socrates Beard exchange is that the first counterargument actually strengthens the idea that Socrates had a beard. The first statement (that Socrates has a beard) has a lot of different possibilities besides the most probable one (for example, Socrates didn't have a beard because he didn't want one). The counterargument (that Socrates had a fake beard) basically admits that Socrates at least appeared to have a beard. This leaves for two possibilities: 1) Socrates had a fake beard or 2) Socrates had a real beard. The possibility that Socrates had a real beard is the much more likely of the two, therefore one can now say with even more certainty that Socrates had a beard.
And this (induction) is why we have so many preconceptions about people from other groups (racial, national, political, religious, etc.), especially if there has been no contact with them. Sometimes, having had contact with them, some of the preconceptions will be confirmed or disproven, but only for that person; yet, we love generalizing from past experiences.
Some People don't understand the concept of arguing to be enlighted. In their mind it's always a battle of some sorts and they couldn't posibly understant that all you want to do is be closer to the truth
jrwlouis ••• There are over three hundred million heavily armed ignorant peasants in this country . Do you really think anyone in any position of authority want them to be able to reason logically? That's why the science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century.
Here's how I remember the difference between the reasoning forms: Abductive- abducts bad ideas and leaves the best. Deductive- deducing is reducing (going down from big generalisations to little specifics) Inductive- ummmm... the other one. It goes from little to big (little specifics to big generalisations)
The last part...one thanks the interlocutor for providing a good counter argument that can't be countered--this should be the #1 rule for RUclips comments.
love the fact that i can learn about something that I really like and can understand it so simply even if hank speaks too fast. this subject is not offered by my school and getting a source to learn it makes me very happy ☺️
People seem to really enjoy arguing and holding on to their initial premise even if they know they're wrong. Arguments like these don't lead to anything. Btw, I'm really liking this series so far!
God, I'm still so happy you guys are doing Philosophy, but could you guys maybe make an extended version of Crash Course Philosophy's theme? It sounds so great, and it relaxes me :D
I really enjoy this series and philosophy in general i wish you guys could recommend a book or some other material for starters. and of course UPLOAD MOAR!!!!
Been watching your show for awhile now. Finally listened to the good mythical morning sound biscuit with you in it. Just wanted to give my admiration and respect! Thank you for what you do Mr green!
I am loving this philosophy series. I haven't been in a philosophy course for several years and these videos are reminding me why I loved the subject so much :) As always, thanks for being awesome!
I disagree, if arguments were like that on the Internet, it wouldn't be fun for others because arguments would lack of drama. I disagreed for the sake of disagreeing, we need to get closer to truth :P
Charles Peirce is an amazing philosopher to consult, if you want to memorize the three types of reasoning down really well! He defined the three types of arguments in terms of rules, cases, and results. Deductive: we begin with a RULE and apply it to a CASE to generate a RESULT Inductive: we observe a CASE and its RESULT to infer a RULE Abductive: we observe a RESULT, consider a RULE(s), and create a CASE
Plain M&Ms are far better since the candy coating to chocolate ratio is flawless. Peanut M&Ms have a larger surface area, but the peanut takes up most of the volume, so the ratios are off, rendering an inferior candy. That and I've never found the peanuts M&Ms used to be that tasty.
VenetianTemper you're taking your personal opinion that ratio is what makes a great. Some people enjoy different variations of "candy ratio". Rendering your argument bias. Thus by your reasoning, since animal feces has a better "consistency" than Campbell's chunky soup, animal feces must taste better than Campbell's chunky soup... Sorry but some people believe peanut m&ms to be a far superior candy than plain m&ms
I was thinking of Sherlock Holmes before he was even brought up in the video, he's a perfect example Induction & Abduction reasoning. Nice job Crash Course!
8:02min Gorgias Abduction: Premise 1: Most great thinkers have great beards Premise 2: Socrates doesnt have a great beard Conclusion: Socrates isnt a great thinker.
but if there's "most" thinkers, there's also "a few" thinkers, therefore, It's like the cat mamal problem... sorry, just tryin to be a phylosophical guy to use my brain a bit.
We have Socratic Seminars at my school about a lot. For example, we recently had one over wether the US should be more like Scandinavia or not. I never made the connection between this and that, but the whole point and method of Socratic Seminars is now much clearer. Thanks.
What I think is interesting is that the counter-argument of Gorgias's claim that Socrates didn't have a beard actually proves that Socrates wore a beard, because regardless of whether it was just a rumor Gorgias created to discredit his opponent or if it was actually true, Socrates would have to at least appear to wear a beard to others.
My thinking is that, if Socrates did not wear a beard, then his opponent would not have made a claim that the beard he wore was fake, because he would have quite clearly had no beard. Additionally, because it seems highly unlikely that Socrates would have had some sort of genetic condition that prevents him from growing a beard and that this would drive him to wear a fake beard, the most likely scenario is that Socrates grew a beard naturally. But in both of the two potential scenarios: 1) Socrates grows his own beard 2) Socrates can't grow a beard + so he makes a fake one there is going to be a beard on Socrates's face.
Once a person makes an argument he has a vested interest in being right. Theologians have an even greater interest since it is their perception of what happens to their eternal soul that is at stake.
foxlake02 First see and then believe, or believe and then see? I can conclude with a good amount of certainty, using all these videos as a premise, that this is a choice you can make where there is no good nor wrong answer on that question. Theologians mostly, if not all, chose the second option. Atheists took the first option.
+BrenBoss Latte Induction: Most commentators wish to express themselves despite the content of the video. Many of these comments seem to have little to do with this video. Perhaps they are using the video as an excuse to express a separate opinion. Counter-arguments? Am I doing this right?
That very last message on being grateful for getting the chance to reject shitty positions and form more sound ones is very important, I love being wrong, a chance to reform my positions and learn.
1. Deduction - one fact leading to another (prev video) 2. Induction - using past experience to make future predictions ; works in probability unlike certainty in case of deduction; Nelson Goodman's Grue-3:30 3. Abduction - drawing a conclusion based on the explanation that best explains a state of events, rather than evidence provided by the premises; unlike deduction and induction, the premises do not lead to conclusion, you eliminate premises to lead you to conclusion. interlocutors - people participating in a dialogue, debate or conversation.
In order to solve the M&M question, I shall use the abusive but most effective method in the practice of arguments and rethorics: STUBBORNESS. PLAIN M&Ms ARE SUPERIOR TO PEANUT M&Ms. The last argument shall be considered as not only as a valid argument and a true premises, but a fundamental undeniable law of nature. And yes I did take my meds today. (Shows teeth)
I know this sounds kinda hollow, but I promise one of these days I'm going to get myself unpoor and I'm going to support the shyt out of you guys. This show is literally the only show I would consider throwing my coins into the crowdfunding when I'm finally back on my feet
Wow, why should we belive anything Socraties said, i mean, could've been wearing a fake beard the whole time, think i need to sit down and ponder this for a moment.
How about this argument. Gorgios claimed that the beard worn by Socrates was false, therefore stating that Socrates had a beard (false or real), assuming that Gorgios was creating a false rumor to discredit Socrates it is safe to assume that Socrates had a beard.
I'll add my two cents since I found this question quite intriguing: A problem for this argument would be assuming that what Gorgios says at least partially true. But given the assumption that he is telling a /false/ rumor - and therefore able to lie - introduces the notion anything else he says can also be a lie. Due to this uncertainty, we cannot assume that the existence of Socrate's beard is true (caused by the uncertain validity of any of Gorigos' words), let alone whether it was fake or not. TL;DR If he can lie about the beard being fake, what's stopping him from lying about the existence of the beard? I'm not sure if this is considered as countering the argument (since it offers nothing relating to the original conclusion), and honestly the conclusion felt like a dead end, but I hope it's introduced another view to the discussion at least. :'D
Part of the socratic method is to ask questions. When you want to teach something to someone, the best way of making someone truly understand you is making them get to the conclusion themselves, so you ask questions that will guide them into a correct answer. They're not trick questions, or questions that without context can't be answered properly (you know, like the questions that a lawyer does to try to incriminate someone), but open questions that have logical answers.
+YuKi Mekishiko Yes, that's the definition of the Socratic method that I'm used to. What the video is talking about I would rather call Platonic dialogue. Or maybe just honest reasoning (as opposed to rhetoric).
"You shouldn't be disappointed if someone presents a counter-argument you cannot find the answer to." Good luck convincing the people of the RUclips comments about that
+David Yee
To be honest, a lot of the counter-arguments seen in RUclips comments boil down to "your stupid".
NO, ITS ABOUT WINNING.
I DONT CARE ABOUT BEING CORRECT OR GETTING MOAR SMARTERER
I CARE ABOUT WINNING.
Premise 1: I care about winning, not getting smarter and closer to the truth.
Premise 2: An intelligent person cares about getting smarter and closer to the truth.
Conclusion: I am not an intelligent person.
"I SHALL NOT BELIEVE YOU!!!!"
I know it's 3 years ago but, good luck convincing the people of youtube in your statement about that.
I love "arguments" like this. I will openly admit I might be wrong and I don't know everything. How could I or anyone ever learn anything. I almost like to be wrong so I learn more and more. Just my opinion. 😊❤❤❤❤
"Thank you for proving me wrong and helping me learn something." -said no one on the Internet ever.
I actually have said that when I got rekt by John on a comment reply chain. I am trying to improve admitting when I am wrong.
LiwenDiamond People often approach a discussion thinking they hold the absolute truth and seek to convince others, which makes them impossible to argue with. I'd quote the pigeon playing chess analogy, but I'll assume you've already heard it somewhere.
Mathieu C Actually no. Feel free to quote away.
LiwenDiamond "Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious."
Premise 1: I really enjoyed the philosophy series so far.
Premise 2: When I enjoy something, I need more of it!
Conclusion: MORREEEEE PLEASEEEEE!
FireFrog i agree with you
FireFrog Great exemple. This is a deductive reasoning I guess.
Your second premise is false
INVALID
You have provided us with what Aristotle would call a “practical syllogism”. The premises explain the action...in this case, of asking for MORE!
"Abduction must be used carefully"
- Hank Green, 2016
And in complete silence
@john smith You should have been using inductive reasoning to predict that you would get that tazering :P
Jesus Christ could you imagine if people on the internet argued liked this, my god what a utopia that would be.
I doubt Jesus will answer you in the comments.
+n8thegr8 Let's start then.
- I don't think the world would become a utopia if random people on the internet would argue like that, for the influence of internet arguments are very slim.
+seth bishop Your comment is funny as hell. Thank you for that :')
Randomly Overpowered haha Furshur!
There is no premise or data to back up the conclusion that internet arguments are not easily influenced. I revert back to the original proposition that arguing with a philosopher's mindset would be Utopian.
these 10 min videos teach me more than weeks of school
Evan that's because you're more willing to learn about what you want to learn about
Evan yes!!!!
Right
years*
@@passingtime8700 True
Me and my step dad had a 5 hour Philosophical debate on Morals, human thought, philosophy, the origin of the universe, the state of our government, and love for one another. It was fucking beautiful and forever changed me.
Wow. May I ask, how did you go about to start it?
Dhillon Dhass Usually some Alcoholic Beverages. And the aroma of a beautiful flower! It always starts out as regular conversation and then you start sharing things you've seen and then you come up with your own! I've been doing it a lot lately. Me and my friend Collin had a good conversation last night.
Dhillon Dhass It had a lot to do with personal/instinctive barriers (Defense Mechanisms) we set in our minds to protect us from physical/emotional harm. Me and him both said things we wouldn't want to just to let each other know what we thought. Even if it was better if we kept them to ourselves. But we understood it was "Just a thought".
Dhillon Dhass Nothing weird just like he asked me if it was ok to start a relationship with a girl that I had a chance with and I said it was fine but the more he talked about her the more I liked her. Got into metaphysics and religion. And I told him how I felt about her but not to worry. You go get it man. I had failed. Its your turn to be happy.
That was quite a jump apparantly 😂 makes me feel like we need a lot of conversations like this in life.
how to start a fight on the internet:
step 1 - state your opinion
step 2 - wait
+Samuel Dillinger I completely disagree, therefore your IQ is
+Samuel Dillinger youre an idiot
see :D
lol ahah
There are a lot of kids online. My little brother argues like that.
me: "I really like this movie"
brother:"This movie sucks"
me:"why?"
brother:"Lol. You stupid."
For a video about how to argue, I find this oddly relaxing. I like that it's how to grow from debate, not just how to "win" a debate.
Lmao your comment is 3 years ago but well I just want to say this xD
We have a debate on the next few days and I'm preparing myself how to present a correct argument and yeah, I learned so much from this video and the thing about that debates are not only about winning. It's also about finding the truth, just like what was said in the video.
kaleidoscope colors •••
This video didn't mention that the science of classical logic is used in criminal courts every day to decide matters of life and death . And the standard of proof in a criminal court is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also didn't mention that our State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
I love how youtube's recommendation engine works:
- I've watched Crash Course Philosophy #1, #2, #3, in order.
- RUclips: May I interest you in Crash Course Philosophy #32, #6, #38, #36, #25 or the Crash Course Philosophy Playlist?
i thought i was crazy. but this is how i've thought, this is my thought process. i don't have an education, so philosophy wasn't an option for me. the opportunity wasn't on the table for me to learn. i'm 34 now and once coronavirus is over, if it ever is im going to attend UC and i'm going to going to get a degree, i understand everything these videos are teaching me and they are a god send. this is maybe the happiest i have ever been in my life.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
I quite HS in 10th grade. No GED. Can't do math (I have learning disabilities anyway), but I've started reteaching myself website design. I've taken up writing again and decided to watch the crash courses on Philosophy, History of Science, and US History. Study Skills next and then Literature and Psychology or Media Literacy (maybe World Mythology).
YOU CAN DO IT!! I'll never officially continue my education but when others do I cheer them on with all I have!!!
robyn marshall ••••
This video didn't mention some pretty crucial information about logical reasoning. It didn't explain how to determine if an inductive argument is cogent or a deductive argument sound . It never explained that logical arguments must be properly supported by reliable evidence. Why do you suppose that is ? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that our State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?
@@williamspringer9447 they actually tackle what you highlighting here in video number 2, how to argue. it focuses on logical reasoning, fallacies, and how to present a proper argument.
@@mystic_tacos fantastic man, im happy for you too. i've flirted with going back to school myself, i'm quite happy in my life at the moment and i'm very happy to hear you are pretty much the same. i don't know what learning disabilities you have, but you are truly a strong person to be tackling so much. it would be a pleasure to say that if no one is proud of you i am. be safe out there tiger :D
It must have been cool to live in a time and place when people made logical arguments
It's not about eras or countries, it's about who you interact with. Pretty sure when two illiterate farmers in ancient Greece got into an argument, they wouldn't use much logic. And if you hang out with the right people - in meatspace or offline - in this day and age, they'll resolve differences with you via logical argument.
+Rowan Evans No they don't the keep on arguing forever when real people solve the real problems.
You hear philosophers debate on hunger and how unjust it is. But most are too dumb to go out and engineer solutions to these issues, hence: ENGINEERS AND EMPIRICAL SCIENTISTS WE SOLVE THE WORLD PROBLEMS!
Raymond Doetjes I didn't say "philosophers", I said "the right people". It could have just as easily referred to two engineers talking about the correct design for a bridge.
That said, your complaint about philosophy is kind of inane - when people in one speciality spend their time on that speciality instead of completely different ones, it's because they're too dumb, therefore philosophy doesn't do anything useful?
Rowan Evans
What has philosophy given us the last 30 years that improved or drastically changed our lives for the better? And what has empirical science and engineering given us?
I dare say that philosophy did not change our lives that much (if at all).
Therefore hard science and engineering is more important for mankind's advances.
And I do see you have a hard time getting sarcasm too ;)
+Raymond Doetjes It certainly didn't give us nuclear bombs,guns,consumerist society without art and spirituallity(not religious sense),list goes on....
Gaah! So Sherlock never deducts, he never has.
He abducts!
Great job, once again. Genius, guys.
He used a deductive argument to prove the inductive arguments always have the potential to produce false results. That made me smile :)
Abduction should only be used if your subject won't come willingly. :p
Nice!
genius
Or if said subject is into that sort of thing
nice one. lmao
DrawnSteelHero I use to be a philosopher like you then I took a fallacy to the decree
This was actually super helpful for my discrete mathematics course. Funny how philosophy and mathematics can be so interconnected.
BE VERY CAREFUL. MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION IS NOT THE SAME.
I love this theme song!
"Just, beware, because abduction must be used carefully" is my favorite Hank Green line.
+Johnathan Rodriguez (Punkdeadpool) That one goes on the taken out of context blog!
This was an abundant of wonderful information in under just 10 minutes. On 07:49 his hair is changed from drawn back to front and the undershirt from black to grey. Then in returns to normal in 08:12. This goes to show you how much time is invested in such short clips and that it probably took more than one day to shoot. Thank you for the great work guys!
How to argue:
Step 1: Grow beard.
Step 2: Stroke beard.
Step 3: Say words.
Step 4: Win argument.
seeing this mans hair go from well combed to messy to back to well combed was the second best part of this video.
The first being his position on peanut m&m’s
I took philosophy many years ago. I learned to LOVE laying out someone's argument as Premise, Premise, Conclusion. It is a useful tool to this day!
Seamless editing, especially of sound and keeping the narration consistent despite multiple hairstyle changes. The animation is superb. I love your videos, they are very engaging. Thank you!
Why did his hair get all messy in a few clips???
+mitch_m24 We got the pronunciation of "Gorgias" wrong on the first shoot so we had to go back and re-shoot all of those bits.
+CrashCourse ...Are We Soon Going To Get Physics Videos Here Soon ...Because Am So Excited ...Been a Subscriber For 4 Years ...Never I Been So Excited For Physics
+CrashCourse hahah dang, I was hoping for a sexier explanation
+Neal Lucas Physics is coming! A preview was posted of the series was posted just a few days ago.
+Neal Lucas For now, you can check out the preview we posted last week. First episode goes up at the end of March :)
I love using the Socratic Method in every day discussions. It drives my significant other crazy because I tend to also breakdown her points to find out what her reasoning is behind each one.
#MakeRUclipsGreatAgain
+Mamoru Goldstedt I feel more powerful now after clicking like on your comment.
"We need to build a wall,and make the trolls pay for it!"
#GradeForPresident2016
+Mamoru Goldstedt Inspired by Grade A Under A?
+Supreme Agario Aren't we all?
It's been an honor to converse with many whom I've come across. When curiously and patiently picking at another's thoughts and asking them the deeper questions in pure pursuit of insight and understanding, even the hostile and seemingly "lost" types will begin opening up and interacting with you on a different level, and you part ways with a new respect for each other; further enlightened.
This has to be at least a million billion times better than The School of Life
+GODOFHELLFIRE3 This is far more objective in nature. School of Life has been shoving their opinion into every philosophy since the start, and that can be excused to a degree, but lately it's just been a propoganda channel.
GODOFHELLFIRE3 yessss 🙏🏽
It really depends because I don't take their stuff as them presenting it that way, I just take it as an idea to consider.
Beware of Olly Thorn in that case
@Brendan Boyle Tell me when and where the school of life has said that their bringing "facts"?
A group of philosophers is called a disagreement.
-Existential comics
True! And it's so fun to me. I have been doing this forever and probably always will! ❤💕
The interesting thing about the Socrates Beard exchange is that the first counterargument actually strengthens the idea that Socrates had a beard. The first statement (that Socrates has a beard) has a lot of different possibilities besides the most probable one (for example, Socrates didn't have a beard because he didn't want one). The counterargument (that Socrates had a fake beard) basically admits that Socrates at least appeared to have a beard. This leaves for two possibilities: 1) Socrates had a fake beard or 2) Socrates had a real beard. The possibility that Socrates had a real beard is the much more likely of the two, therefore one can now say with even more certainty that Socrates had a beard.
Yeah but *why* would he want to have a beard?
VitalNutrients because most men in Ancient Rome at had beards
Possibility vs probability
two different things
Induction is based on probability not possibility
And this (induction) is why we have so many preconceptions about people from other groups (racial, national, political, religious, etc.), especially if there has been no contact with them. Sometimes, having had contact with them, some of the preconceptions will be confirmed or disproven, but only for that person; yet, we love generalizing from past experiences.
This is so far the best crash course I've seen. Thanks for making such great content!
This is how to argue:
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
+mosquitobight No it isn't!
+JerehmiaBoaz Yes it is!
+LittleLion93 ISN'T!
+Ni Clouds
Yes, it is 😾
مروى عثمان الصوفي Finally somebody that knows something!!!
Some People don't understand the concept of arguing to be enlighted. In their mind it's always a battle of some sorts and they couldn't posibly understant that all you want to do is be closer to the truth
jrwlouis •••
There are over three hundred million heavily armed ignorant peasants in this country . Do you really think anyone in any position of authority want them to be able to reason logically? That's why the science of classical logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century.
Here's how I remember the difference between the reasoning forms:
Abductive- abducts bad ideas and leaves the best.
Deductive- deducing is reducing (going down from big generalisations to little specifics)
Inductive- ummmm... the other one. It goes from little to big (little specifics to big generalisations)
The last part...one thanks the interlocutor for providing a good counter argument that can't be countered--this should be the #1 rule for RUclips comments.
New Crash Course Philosophy Video?
Me: This. Is. Gonna. Be. AWESOME!!
Deductive reasoning.
love the fact that i can learn about something that I really like and can understand it so simply even if hank speaks too fast.
this subject is not offered by my school and getting a source to learn it makes me very happy ☺️
People seem to really enjoy arguing and holding on to their initial premise even if they know they're wrong. Arguments like these don't lead to anything. Btw, I'm really liking this series so far!
I found myself walking away from arguments that aren't in my favor i really need to learn how to stop doing that.
Did you ever learn how to stop?
Hank, I get better educated thanks to you than to the whole school system. Please never stop making these courses ♡
God, I'm still so happy you guys are doing Philosophy, but could you guys maybe make an extended version of Crash Course Philosophy's theme? It sounds so great, and it relaxes me :D
Love the theme music...but its so short.
Ikr?
oh grow up
This ain't a music video that it has to be long
I have an inductive argument for the conclusion that I am going to like every video in this series.
I predict some people will comment before they watched the video.
Premise: all crash course videos ever
This is an amazing series so far. DFTBA, Hank.
Your profile pic makes me smile.
+Artsy_Judoka Glad to hear it! Feel the Bern.
I squealed when Sherlock came up. I love this channel, it's the reason I passed my psychology test.
I already love this Crash Course series! It's in a way great to think about thinking
I'm loving this series!
This type of critical thinking should be incorporated in early education.
I spent weeks trying and failing to understand the "grue" problem in my philosophy course. NOW I get it. Thanks +CrashCourse!
The background knowledge on argument in the book “being logical” really helped a lot in understanding this informative and amazing video
3:01 - love the subtle jab at Marvel.
"The new Marvel movie might be awful"
...
Showing Iron Man's suit from Iron Man 3
+Leonardo Santos we're gonna need a better suit.
I really enjoy this series and philosophy in general i wish you guys could recommend a book or some other material for starters. and of course UPLOAD MOAR!!!!
Been watching your show for awhile now. Finally listened to the good mythical morning sound biscuit with you in it. Just wanted to give my admiration and respect! Thank you for what you do Mr green!
I am loving this philosophy series. I haven't been in a philosophy course for several years and these videos are reminding me why I loved the subject so much :) As always, thanks for being awesome!
Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Daniel, back at it with the white vans
+Frosty Jordan Fuck you no
No no no! I thought that was only on Instagram! Someone save me!
STOP
+Frosty Jordan Only post memes when they're relevant. I hope you can tell whether or not this is.
+Frosty Jordan I am SO fucking tired of these damn trends. Kill me now.
How can the same guy teach chemistry and philosophy?! Is he good at both? NOT POSSIBLE????????!!!!!!!
Thank you Hank and everyone for making all of the things you make. It is good.
Thank you guys for making Philosophy interesting and digestible. Great series so far.
Bucky, Cap, and Ironmans mini fights were hilarious
I would gladly watch a mini version of winter soldier.
+TheyCallMeGawd And Civil War.
Hank, how dare you? Plain M&M's are my favorite!
Why?
+Riley Purcell :DDD
So many people need to watch this, the sheer number of folks I know who don't understand how to debate is staggering.
I've just began my research and understanding of Philosophy and I'm loving it! Thank you for the awesome videos.
If only online arguments worked the same
I disagree, if arguments were like that on the Internet, it wouldn't be fun for others because arguments would lack of drama.
I disagreed for the sake of disagreeing, we need to get closer to truth :P
+Lord Retro i disagree because it gets boring since a few argument in you might as well just go read and insult dictionary, a really bad one.
+marlonyo I'm sorry, I didn't get your sentence. Can you rephrase please?
@@Grace_Ravel n
people should argue like philosophers more often
+Natalia Belli But then there's no drama!! :)
+Little Lion Exactly.
lol
+Natalia Belli Then they wouln't get the attention and thumbs ups.
+Natalia Belli Only when you want them to cut their wrists.
Philosophers are almost as useless to the world as theologians.
Charles Peirce is an amazing philosopher to consult, if you want to memorize the three types of reasoning down really well! He defined the three types of arguments in terms of rules, cases, and results.
Deductive: we begin with a RULE and apply it to a CASE to generate a RESULT
Inductive: we observe a CASE and its RESULT to infer a RULE
Abductive: we observe a RESULT, consider a RULE(s), and create a CASE
this is the best speaker ever I have found on youtube
I watched this video;
I decided to comment;
therefore;
hippopotamus.
Plain M&Ms are far better since the candy coating to chocolate ratio is flawless. Peanut M&Ms have a larger surface area, but the peanut takes up most of the volume, so the ratios are off, rendering an inferior candy.
That and I've never found the peanuts M&Ms used to be that tasty.
VenetianTemper you're taking your personal opinion that ratio is what makes a great. Some people enjoy different variations of "candy ratio". Rendering your argument bias. Thus by your reasoning, since animal feces has a better "consistency" than Campbell's chunky soup, animal feces must taste better than Campbell's chunky soup... Sorry but some people believe peanut m&ms to be a far superior candy than plain m&ms
*Insert "candy" between "a" and "great"
I was thinking of Sherlock Holmes before he was even brought up in the video, he's a perfect example Induction & Abduction reasoning. Nice job Crash Course!
I love the the use of Sherlock Holmes to help remember abduction. Also, Hank's hair changes at 8:11
"honey, did you lose my emerald ring?"
"no,why?"
"It looks more like sapphire now..."
8:02min
Gorgias Abduction:
Premise 1: Most great thinkers have great beards
Premise 2: Socrates doesnt have a great beard
Conclusion: Socrates isnt a great thinker.
but if there's "most" thinkers, there's also "a few" thinkers,
therefore, It's like the cat mamal problem...
sorry, just tryin to be a phylosophical guy to use my brain a bit.
I'm loving this series! Also, the music for the intro and outro is the best so far! Keep it up!
The Socratic Method is line the greatest thing ever.
That is an uncounterable argument.
Many popular youtube channel have some spam comments
Crashcourse is a popular youtube channel
Therefore Crashcourse must have some spam comments
Must is supposed to be probably. It's probable, not certain. (I'm also a hypocrite, so, don't take this as I'm better-- just trying to help)
I'm one minute in, and I learned that induction causes anxiety in me.
Great job, brain.
I need to get my head out of overexessive suspicions.
We have Socratic Seminars at my school about a lot. For example, we recently had one over wether the US should be more like Scandinavia or not. I never made the connection between this and that, but the whole point and method of Socratic Seminars is now much clearer. Thanks.
Another great video. I can't work out if I watch them to learn or for entertainment; I receive both.
What I think is interesting is that the counter-argument of Gorgias's claim that Socrates didn't have a beard actually proves that Socrates wore a beard, because regardless of whether it was just a rumor Gorgias created to discredit his opponent or if it was actually true, Socrates would have to at least appear to wear a beard to others.
It does not prove itself that is circular reasoning.... Or am I being dumb? I might be being dumb...
My thinking is that, if Socrates did not wear a beard, then his opponent would not have made a claim that the beard he wore was fake, because he would have quite clearly had no beard. Additionally, because it seems highly unlikely that Socrates would have had some sort of genetic condition that prevents him from growing a beard and that this would drive him to wear a fake beard, the most likely scenario is that Socrates grew a beard naturally.
But in both of the two potential scenarios:
1) Socrates grows his own beard
2) Socrates can't grow a beard + so he makes a fake one
there is going to be a beard on Socrates's face.
Yes but the argument isnt whether socrates 'appeared' to have a beard, it's whether he had a 'real' beard.
Wow I've never been this early before. No, I'm not going to make a joke.
We appreciate that
From 8:10 to 8:12, his hair changes wildly. Hair doesn't naturally change wildly in such a short a time. Hank's hair has a mind of its own.
These videos are so interesting but I fall asleep every time because it's soon relaxing
Lol same! Soft music and gentle voice
If the philosopher isn't grateful when you show their argumebt to be invalid or false then they're probably a theologian.
Once a person makes an argument he has a vested interest in being right. Theologians have an even greater interest since it is their perception of what happens to their eternal soul that is at stake.
The argument of induction brings me to the conclusion that you have a negative opinion on theologians.
JackThatMonkey Yes, for the most part. It is based in evidence though, not faith.
foxlake02 First see and then believe, or believe and then see?
I can conclude with a good amount of certainty, using all these videos as a premise, that this is a choice you can make where there is no good nor wrong answer on that question.
Theologians mostly, if not all, chose the second option. Atheists took the first option.
See evidence and then believe. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
I can't tell if there is sarcasm in the comments or everyone is not getting a difference of debate and philosophy.
+BrenBoss Latte LOL! This made me laugh!
+BrenBoss Latte Induction: Most commentators wish to express themselves despite the content of the video. Many of these comments seem to have little to do with this video. Perhaps they are using the video as an excuse to express a separate opinion.
Counter-arguments? Am I doing this right?
NatchEvil correct you are
That very last message on being grateful for getting the chance to reject shitty positions and form more sound ones is very important, I love being wrong, a chance to reform my positions and learn.
1. Deduction - one fact leading to another (prev video)
2. Induction - using past experience to make future predictions ; works in probability unlike certainty in case of deduction; Nelson Goodman's Grue-3:30
3. Abduction - drawing a conclusion based on the explanation that best explains a state of events, rather than evidence provided by the premises; unlike deduction and induction, the premises do not lead to conclusion, you eliminate premises to lead you to conclusion.
interlocutors - people participating in a dialogue, debate or conversation.
Human ego always gets in the way of being a "good philosopher." ;)
prismaticcrow how?
In order to solve the M&M question, I shall use the abusive but most effective method in the practice of arguments and rethorics: STUBBORNESS.
PLAIN M&Ms ARE SUPERIOR TO PEANUT M&Ms. The last argument shall be considered as not only as a valid argument and a true premises, but a fundamental undeniable law of nature. And yes I did take my meds today. (Shows teeth)
I can see why thus gave birth to science. This is way more logical and organized than it appears.
I know this sounds kinda hollow, but I promise one of these days I'm going to get myself unpoor and I'm going to support the shyt out of you guys. This show is literally the only show I would consider throwing my coins into the crowdfunding when I'm finally back on my feet
Wow, why should we belive anything Socraties said, i mean, could've been wearing a fake beard the whole time, think i need to sit down and ponder this for a moment.
Your conclusion highlights the difference between religion and philosophy.
Does anyone else love the music in the crash course intro? It's beautiful. It fits the subject of philosophy well, I think.
I wish more people (including myself) learned to argue like a philosopher. Not arguing to win but merely to get closer to the truth.
How about this argument. Gorgios claimed that the beard worn by Socrates was false, therefore stating that Socrates had a beard (false or real), assuming that Gorgios was creating a false rumor to discredit Socrates it is safe to assume that Socrates had a beard.
I was thinking the same thing....and about to question Hank on why he left that excellent point out of this philosophy video.
+Callie S SAME
I'll add my two cents since I found this question quite intriguing:
A problem for this argument would be assuming that what Gorgios says at least partially true. But given the assumption that he is telling a /false/ rumor - and therefore able to lie - introduces the notion anything else he says can also be a lie. Due to this uncertainty, we cannot assume that the existence of Socrate's beard is true (caused by the uncertain validity of any of Gorigos' words), let alone whether it was fake or not.
TL;DR If he can lie about the beard being fake, what's stopping him from lying about the existence of the beard?
I'm not sure if this is considered as countering the argument (since it offers nothing relating to the original conclusion), and honestly the conclusion felt like a dead end, but I hope it's introduced another view to the discussion at least. :'D
Quantum approach: Emeralds are both green and grue until the probability function collapses. BOOM SCHRODINGERED BITCH!
+Daniel Lobo hahahaha its hillarious because 90% of the youtubers wont get it
Part of the socratic method is to ask questions. When you want to teach something to someone, the best way of making someone truly understand you is making them get to the conclusion themselves, so you ask questions that will guide them into a correct answer. They're not trick questions, or questions that without context can't be answered properly (you know, like the questions that a lawyer does to try to incriminate someone), but open questions that have logical answers.
+YuKi Mekishiko Yes, that's the definition of the Socratic method that I'm used to. What the video is talking about I would rather call Platonic dialogue. Or maybe just honest reasoning (as opposed to rhetoric).
i restarted watching this series as a productive break from my other philosophy course but it feels like this one is actually way better what the hell