CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Deductive Arguments
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Pynn (Northern Illinois) follows up on his introduction to critical thinking by exploring how deductive arguments give us reason to believe their conclusions. Good deductive arguments guarantee their conclusions, and so must be valid (i.e., it must be impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false) and have true premises. Philosophers call arguments like these "sound". You can see whether an argument is sound by trying to think of a counterexample to it, but to see whether its premises are true, you need to do some research.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/Gd0j/
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Validity [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kdJ6aGToDlo/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Validity [HD]](/img/tr.png)
This was a whole week of lectures in just over 5 minutes. Wow.
Schools need to teach this subject starting in grade schools... Students are taught "what" to learn/ think but not "how" to.
Agree!
True.
Stephen Robertson
True now more than ever.
We can't do that! Then our children would grow up actually able to not simply believe what they are told to believe. Our entire society couldn't function if filled with people who don't just blindly believe whatever authority tells them.
@@ambershah5741 Stephen means, right from the class 1.
It would be devastating for the students if critical thinking is taught in maths only for the students who don't have interest in the subject. In northern Europe critical thinking is taught by taking the students out in the nature and to look around them.
Thirty years ago in college I got a grade C in Introduction to Philosophy 101 class. I just didn't connect with the subject. It is amazing how people share knowledge for free on YT. Your videos are most excellent. Thank you!
Thanks for sharing!
It's such a well-animated video on an important topic that everyone should be familiar with... so why so few views? :(
i mean like you can do it since he used a website to make it
Because people are more interested in watching dog videos, make up tutorials and prank videos than learning something useful.
It has quarter of a million views now.
I've become obsessed with developing my critical thinking skills ever since trump was elected president. I'm determined to help a couple of my republican friends see the error in their reasoning. Both are well educated and quite bright so I have a lot of work to do! Thank you for these wonderfully concise and clear videos!
As a republican, I gotta say I really really respect you. I wish the world was filled with people like you!
I'm not American, but I feel like true logical and critical thinkers very quickly realize, that a large entity like a political party is far more challenging to judge than a single individual. While I can relate to democrats and their push for anti-racism freedom of religion and anti-discrimination, democrats are also keen on pushing values and ideologies that are not required for normal human function, such as extreme feminism, veganism/animal protection and LGBTQ+ ideas that most people are not comfortable with and especially wouldn't like their children to learn. Obviously, republicans have their own problems as well.
But what do you think about Biden and comparing that to trump(tbh I think both are shit lol)
I have been having a horrible time in my PHI class. I have no clue why I am not picking up on this material. I have a 4.0 for goodness sakes! My professor has been working his bootie off to assist me. I guess I am one of the doomed who is destined to never have any common sense. This video gets an A+ from me, but I do not think I have gotten it any better as of yet.
Check out Kevin deLaplante's tutorials on arguments.
Geoff has had a shave since the last video... I deduced this from the 2 photos.
Thanks for these videos. The world needs this!
4:16 I think this is beautiful because it demonstrates that the rules of logic and deduction were established using induction
The fact that you write everything down makes it easy to write notes😊
Really nice video, but the subtitles are a few seconds of sync.
Induction is when we get the conclusion which is most probable from the premises. We cannot be certain of this. Deduction is when we are certain from the premises. In the fictitious character Sherlock Holmes, he is actually practicing Induction instead of Deduction. I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did this to add to Sherlock's ego.
All detactives use Abductive reason which is pinnacle of human knowledge. Deductive reasoning won't get you actually anywhere other within basic assumptions
I am studying this for my critical reading class today. It has enough views when it's over 1,000 in my opinion.
If I attack an argument because it commits an informal logical fallacy (begging the question, ad hominem, etc.), am I attacking its logical validity or its soundness?
I believe that you would be attacking the validity of the argument. Fallacies stand as illusory inferential links between premises. Once those fallacies are illuminated, it becomes clear that the conclusions do not follow from the premises.
It depends on which fallacy is being committed. The two fallacies you bring up are good examples to show the distinction. Ad hominem employs an irrelevant premise so the argument would be invalid--the conclusion is not guaranteed if the premises are true. Begging the question employs a premise that if true guarantees that the conclusion is true, so it is technically a valid argument. But the premise is unacceptable because it is assuming the conclusion and thus the argument would not be sound.
It's like a logical type equation.
@4:34 Did he mean "even if you know the argument is VALID"? He said "sound".
Im so happy this pass trough my feed !
Subtitles aren't in sync...
If a deductive argument has false premise does that mean that the conclusion is also false?
If a premise is false then the argument is unsound. That does not _necessarily_ mean the conclusion is false, but it does mean that the argument does not support it.
Men named David are the sexiest men in the world.
My name is David.
Therefore I am one of the sexiest men in the world.
(Unsound, but valid, and undeniably true. 😁)
Did u ever figure out the answer lol
@@davidh.4944 do u know why it’s hard to have good logic plausibility and interest all within one argument
is he using the south park typeface?
Do you offer or know of any interactive online resources that will help with retention and mastery of this topic. For the ones not in college or pursuing secondary education?
you are really amazing... Lots of love..u can't imaging how much you help me...love from Bangladesh
that drawing thing some people do in their video is actually interfering instead of helping. At least in my case.
Can one of the premises be false and the conclusion can still be true
What about if Monty attends the party via zoom?
Thank you for using a relatable example with Beyoncé. Too many “teachers” use boring examples that make you tune them out.
damn ... This is Gold!!
You state at the start that it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Later in the video, with the counter argument about Beyoncé, you show how the premises are true, but the conclusion is false - something you earlier stated was impossible. Please help!
This video was so helpful!
This is an excellent series. But at 4:34 minutes the speaker says "now if you don't know whether the premises or an argument are true, then even if the argument really is rsound then it doesn't give you a good reason to believe its conclusion." Did he mean "valid" instead of "sound" here? Because the premises have to be true in order for an argument to be sound. Was that just the spoken equivalent of a typo?
Proof by assertion seems to rule RUclips lol
If the premises being true entails the truth of the conclusion, then how is it possible that Beyonce not appreciating opera is not valid?
Can't technically a classical musician hate opera?
That's why the conclusion does not draw from the premises and the argument is therefore invalid.
Of course. Opera music is written for singers not musicians. Outside of overtures and beloved arias, opera music is rather ordinary and, often, repetitive.
@@matheusmelo6022 Not quite right, I believe. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises (and is invalid) because it doesn't take into account the possibility that pop singers can love opera, too. If the first premise were narrowed to "ONLY classical musicians appreciate opera", or changed to "pop singers don't appreciate opera", then it would be valid.
The argument is _unsound_ because classical musicians can indeed hate opera (the first premise, as given, is false), in addition to it being invalid.
Not gonna lie, I think this is a hard topic.
i can't hear you.
Please add arabic subtitles on this course
Thank you
I've never felt so dumb in lecture. Ok, I'll keep trying till I understand it haha.
Very Good..
Plz explain critical thinking perfectly
*VVIP* 5:17
WiFi video?
WiPhi = Wireless Philosophy
The definition of Validity was always an iffy definition. Let there be premises A = True ,B = False ,C=True, Ergo Z, still be valid despite Z has nothing to do with the premises. Just Saying. Soundness had a better definition than Validity. Soundness has to be both syntactically correct and semantically correct.
not ALL classical musicians have to appreciate opera :/