This really should be taught in school. Instead you have to take an intro to philosophy course in college to even hear this shit in a classroom setting.
Agreed. Democracy is a valued characteristic of our country. Democracy requires citizens well-informed of logic, reason and critical thinking. Therefore our schools should give up bullshit standardized testing whereby students are drilled on how to answer questions that are discharged from an industrially manufactured pedagogical magazine.
Curtis006 sorry not quite true. My very first college class was Critical Thinking. Had Intro to Philosophy same semester then Logic my second semester. And that was in '86 so it is available but it should be mandatory.
SetoSokotsu you must be a liberal college graduate if you think you're teaching anything to anybody By what I always called garbage in garbage out. skip this class.
Bücherregal Domi learning to think is one of the greatest things a person can do... but you get these disappointing train track thinkers. For some reason they develop a very rigid philosophical thought. they're not horrible people they're just philosophy teachers who are overwhelmed with deep philosophical thought... This isn't even a bad thing but do you know what is a bad thing. they're teaching our children and weather you agree or not they're doing a very poor job of it.
I couldn't agree more. However, religious fanatics are not interested in critical thinking, it does not help them, because magic. The original sin was Eva eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge: for them, knowledge is a sin, ignorance is salvation.
San Miguel TV it's always amusing to read people posting how other people other people need critical thinking glasses this includes everybody that doesn't agree with exactly what they think
I think it's mad critical thinking isn't really taught in schools when you've made a resource here that's so simplified and tailored in a way that even a teenager could understand it. Looking forward to the full series.
P1: Narcissists are people that have an unhealthy obsession of themselves. P2: Trump has an unhealthy obsession of himself. C: Therefore, he is a narcissist. Valid and sound
Thank you for presenting this clip, David. It is such a shame that these common sense “life skills” are not taught to students any longer. The earlier you can “grab a kid by the brain,” the more you prepare him for a successful life of critical thinking, and a life filled with learning how to learn. Great job!
I honestly didn't realize until fairly recently how VITAL the Critical Thinking class I was required to take in Jr. College, WAAAY back in the late 80s, has been for my entire adult life. I take this skill for granted. Arguing with Right-wingers and especially fundies, it's clear there is a *desperate* need for these simple lessons in America. They simply don't know what they don't know.
Testing for validity can be very intuitive as just about anyone can perceive whether something "makes sense". The problem is testing for soundness. There's more effort in reading into an argument to see if the premises are true than just looking at it at face-value.
Some shit stain validity in real life arguments isn’t as intuitive as people imagine, especially with the muddiness of language and hidden equivocations.
You have to take a step further and then classify each valid and sound argument as one fact and then use those facts in addition to possible reasons for any non-valid and/or sound arguments that gets mixed in. Then you can use that information to create more facts and test them against each other to build a hypothesis. You can actually learn a lot about an issue from what people do not say, either intentionally or otherwise.
There's a mistake in the video you've presented David at 2:23. You've spelled "Conclusion" incorrectly. Might wanna go in and fix that before you release the whole thing...
This is the exact stuff we need in schools; basic logic and fallacy-spotting. People go their entire lives without learning how to properly justify their beliefs, despite it being something that even middle schoolers can learn.
David, I regularly view/monitor a number of different progressive podcast outlets, and I find yours to be one of the three or so most valuable, clear, interesting, accurate and open-minded. Thank you so much for all you and Pat do, and definitely appreciate your great idea to post these critical thinking pieces--- very important!!! Takes me back to my college philosophy class on logic.
For the completed episodes, I think you need to break every argument down with the formula also. For example, it wasn't clear WHY it didn't follow that Jill Stein is a member of the Green Party from the previous premises of Rubio and Clinton: P: Marco Rubio is a Republican (A=B, the first true premiss) P: Hillary Clinton is a Democrat (C=D, also true, but is a totally different premiss) C: Jill Stein is a member of the Green Party (E=F, true, but is basically a third unrelated premiss that doesn't follow from the previous two in any way)
Excellent! The world sorely needs this. If I may make a suggestion: on the Ted Cruz example, you make a political remark ("horrible reality"). This remark may put off people that may otherwise desperately need this Critical Thinking course. Keep up the good work. And thank you.
Very nice! Looking forward to the series being completed and available. One quick blooper, at time mark 2:21 the word "conclusion" is spelled "conlusion." You may want to fix that before finalizing the video.
At my University (in France), we have questions related to critical thinking, they're often at the end of the test so you have to answer quickly. You should give real life examples of logical fallacies, very excited for this, keep up the good work David.
"And, I'm like, a smart person...." That was awesome Pat, I'm sure I'm not the only one who got a chuckle out of it. But I have to know, did you plan that beforehand, or was that spur of the moment?
Your statements are true and valid. My Pre-Law professors taught me that back in the 1980's. Cannot wait for the class. I need a refresher course. Thank you Mr. Pakeman. Mark
I think in addition to knowing what an argument is and what makes it true, where a lot of people struggle is just finding the premises in an argument in the wild. Explaining how to find a premise would be a good topic on its own.
This is awesome. To be fair, we actually learned this stuff in 10th grade math class... I think we were a bit of an outlier though. I only encountered it later when I took Symbolic Logic in college. I can definitely see how many people would never encounter this at all though.
I have taken logic philosophy in college. It’s a laid-back subject in college. The first midterm was hard, the second one was so-so, the final was easy. The proofs on the computer were somewhat similar to proofs in geometry.
Except there's a clear logical fallacy in your argument. Hamsters actually land a lot better than many other animals. Their fur creates enough air resistance to allow them to survive falls that, in proportion to body length, would crush the bones of a dog.
Trump supporters need this stuff more than anyone. I've been in debates with some of them who can't even recognize when you point out a clear logical fallacy they've made. It's like pinning someone to the ground with their arm in a key lock and they still won't submit.
Comment Section PSA: Remember everyone, feeding a Troll will not make them go away. It will only validate their behavior. Trolls will only adapt their arguments to whatever logic is presented. Call out troll behavior as it occurs and ignore their subsequent rage fueled attempts to continue the fight.
I'm going to be perfectly honest, I don't think I need this: it's been a strong suit of mine since I was a _kid._ However, I very much plan to watch the whole thing as soon as it becomes available to me. I'm curious if there's something I'm missing, or that I could get a lot better at, and fifteen parts sounds like a lot.
It is a class taught at university, mathematical logic and reasoning is the course in some places. Although it's for STEM students when art majors should really be taking it
Slight change I would make to the example @4: 00, I would change the line from "Paris is a city" to "Paris is the capital of a country, I think the throughline of the lesson would flow better.
Can't wait. I kind of expected this kind of stuff to come up in science class when you talk about the validity of someone's experiment or if you are planning to create one? Or in math class I don't know, because I haven't studied science and I only passed math because my teacher didn't want to see me in his class for another year - but this simple statement in the video seems like a familiar warmer at secondary school, something that might come up in popular logic quiz book. P1: All the boys in class wear blue sweaters P2: Sam wears a blue sweater Sam is a boy. True or false? Unfortunately, most situations demanding critical thinking are not as simple and the demand of being more "sympathetic" or "humane" rather than "cold and logical" can cloud our judgement at least temporarily. It is also difficult to sometimes separate feelings from facts when it comes to certain situations, even if one can be quite logical in other instances.
P1: A student gets full credit on a SAM project if he or she gets at least 80 on it. P2: Student got 92 on the first project on the first project for her accounting class. P3: Student got 86 on the second project. P4: Student got 94 on the third and last project. C: Therefore, she gets full credit on all projects. Valid and sound
Wenguang Jiang Expect there's nothing there that states a required number of projects in order to get a full credit. By simple reading comprehension, there's only three projects because of the word last being used in relation to the third project. For example, in football whenever you hear 4th and goal, it means that any yards gained after 4 yard is a touchdown.
I don't mean to be picky, but if sound means that the argument is valid and has true premises, then an argument just needs to be sound as soundness includes validity. There is a redundancy in the statement that an argument needs to be valid and sound unless soundness doesn't include validity.
Here’s some logic for you P1: If you represent progressives and progressive issues, you can count on the progressive vote. P2: Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment do not represent progressives or progressive issues. C: Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment can not count on the progressive vote.
Does critical thinking in general assist people to avoid falling for con-artists' tricks, or would a class more specifically on con-artists' manipulation techniques and methods be more effective?
Thank-you for this David. I was trying to tell my parents about critical thinking while they were trying to explaine to me about Barack Obama's sex dungeon on Mars.
Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero.
so. when you said there should be more videos on critical thinking someone called you names. and that didn't make you want that content more because.....?
Man is a rational animal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is a rational animal. But ... Socrates is insane! I could have used a more current example, but that's the way I read it 60 some years ago in Astounding (now Analog).
If you want to only accept deductive arguments, then you’re politically paralyzed. Should have mentioned induction and the paucity of true deductive arguments.
Hey, why shouldn't we make it a requirement that ANY political candidate have at least 4 years of university in certain field(s) to qualify for running? Combining the requirements that they not own any business, stocks or have any immediate family in a position of power any large company. Or, what about a school just for the purpose of creating the type of representatives the people need? I'm just so pissed that a bunch of idiots picked even bigger idiots to represent me. It's clear that in our society that the voice of a thousand fools drowns the voice of wisdom.
I think the examples used to demonstrate invalid arguments are just too obvious. For both the Paris argument and the political party argument the premises clearly do not lead to the conclusions and I doubt you would find many people who would think otherwise. In real life, most invalid arguments people encounter will sound much more reasonable than these examples and will be harder to spot. I suggest using one or more example invalid arguments where the conclusion is much more closely linked to the premises. An example argument you could present might be: P: The Catholic Church teaches that use of contraceptives for birth control is immoral. P: Sarah is a Catholic. C: Sarah believes that use of contraceptives for birth control is immoral.
I dropped my Patreon donation after I switched to membership. Unintentionally hurting your target.... maybe membership growth should also be factored into your targets?
Its not best example of deductive reasoning but more like a clear example of the transitive property in algebra. Deductive reasoning should be about making a hypothesis/ intelligent guess from a correct general statement. Which is opposite of Inductive reasoning which is making a general statement based on specific observations.
Way to inject political ideology into a completely objective topic. In my search for good videos concerning validity of arguments, your political cheap shots leave me searching elsewhere.
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Validity [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kdJ6aGToDlo/mqdefault.jpg)
This really should be taught in school. Instead you have to take an intro to philosophy course in college to even hear this shit in a classroom setting.
And it should be available on floppy disc for Trump supporters.
Agreed. Democracy is a valued characteristic of our country. Democracy requires citizens well-informed of logic, reason and critical thinking. Therefore our schools should give up bullshit standardized testing whereby students are drilled on how to answer questions that are discharged from an industrially manufactured pedagogical magazine.
I learned most of that in in 11th grade math class.
Curtis006 sorry not quite true. My very first college class was Critical Thinking. Had Intro to Philosophy same semester then Logic my second semester. And that was in '86 so it is available but it should be mandatory.
I agree, this should be a mandatory class in high school.
teaching logic, excellent work Pakman. Meanwhile, at pragerU.....XD!
PragerU: Why ad hominems are a path to victory
PragerU : Jesus actually liked fossil fuels
SetoSokotsu you must be a liberal college graduate if you think you're teaching anything to anybody By what I always called garbage in garbage out. skip this class.
+Jack Harter, allow free market man, if somebody wants to take this class, they have the freedom to take it, even if you think it's garbage.
Bücherregal Domi learning to think is one of the greatest things a person can do... but you get these disappointing train track thinkers. For some reason they develop a very rigid philosophical thought. they're not horrible people they're just philosophy teachers who are overwhelmed with deep philosophical thought... This isn't even a bad thing but do you know what is a bad thing. they're teaching our children and weather you agree or not they're doing a very poor job of it.
Good work Pakman !
I know some religious fanatics that desperately need some critical thinking courses.
San Miguel TV I agree how else are they going to learn that all dogs can fly...
results vary when talking to the religious.
I couldn't agree more. However, religious fanatics are not interested in critical thinking, it does not help them, because magic. The original sin was Eva eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge: for them, knowledge is a sin, ignorance is salvation.
omaha2pt That’s true.. I use to think like them so I should know better than anyone.
San Miguel TV it's always amusing to read people posting how other people other people need critical thinking glasses this includes everybody that doesn't agree with exactly what they think
I think it's mad critical thinking isn't really taught in schools when you've made a resource here that's so simplified and tailored in a way that even a teenager could understand it. Looking forward to the full series.
Andy Benji "even a teenager could understand it." BURN!
I'm ready!!!
Teaching those in your audience who want to learn to think critically gets a big thumbs up in my book! Good on you, David and crew.
I had to become a patron just because I need this series to exist sooner
P1: Narcissists are people that have an unhealthy obsession of themselves.
P2: Trump has an unhealthy obsession of himself.
C: Therefore, he is a narcissist.
Valid and sound
1290Li not valid actually. The premise doesn't imply that anyone that fits the description is a narcissist, just that narcissists do
Yeah, not valid. Same as :
Flamingos are pink.
My pet bird is pink.
My pet bird is a flamingo.
1290Li that’s not valid, actually. The premise doesn’t state that ALL people who have an unhealthy obsession with themselves are narcissists.
If P1 was "people that have an unhealthy obsession with themselves are narcissists," then it would be valid.
@pinochet pilot #66 No. ***A*** Jew, is dishonest is the best you can conclude from those two premises.
Critical thinking lacks everywhere mate, not just the U.S.
in the us its an epidemic.
note our current leadership and national policies.
Start at 2:03
Thank you for presenting this clip, David. It is such a shame that these common sense “life skills” are not taught to students any longer. The earlier you can “grab a kid by the brain,” the more you prepare him for a successful life of critical thinking, and a life filled with learning how to learn. Great job!
I honestly didn't realize until fairly recently how VITAL the Critical Thinking class I was required to take in Jr. College, WAAAY back in the late 80s, has been for my entire adult life. I take this skill for granted. Arguing with Right-wingers and especially fundies, it's clear there is a *desperate* need for these simple lessons in America.
They simply don't know what they don't know.
Great project. All schools should teach critical thinking.
Testing for validity can be very intuitive as just about anyone can perceive whether something "makes sense". The problem is testing for soundness. There's more effort in reading into an argument to see if the premises are true than just looking at it at face-value.
Some shit stain validity in real life arguments isn’t as intuitive as people imagine, especially with the muddiness of language and hidden equivocations.
You have to take a step further and then classify each valid and sound argument as one fact and then use those facts in addition to possible reasons for any non-valid and/or sound arguments that gets mixed in. Then you can use that information to create more facts and test them against each other to build a hypothesis.
You can actually learn a lot about an issue from what people do not say, either intentionally or otherwise.
There's a mistake in the video you've presented David at 2:23. You've spelled "Conclusion" incorrectly. Might wanna go in and fix that before you release the whole thing...
You are just great, David! That is really what is needed those days. Thank you very much!
This is the exact stuff we need in schools; basic logic and fallacy-spotting. People go their entire lives without learning how to properly justify their beliefs, despite it being something that even middle schoolers can learn.
David, I regularly view/monitor a number of different progressive podcast outlets, and I find yours to be one of the three or so most valuable, clear, interesting, accurate and open-minded.
Thank you so much for all you and Pat do, and definitely appreciate your great idea to post these critical thinking pieces--- very important!!! Takes me back to my college philosophy class on logic.
For the completed episodes, I think you need to break every argument down with the formula also. For example, it wasn't clear WHY it didn't follow that Jill Stein is a member of the Green Party from the previous premises of Rubio and Clinton:
P: Marco Rubio is a Republican (A=B, the first true premiss)
P: Hillary Clinton is a Democrat (C=D, also true, but is a totally different premiss)
C: Jill Stein is a member of the Green Party (E=F, true, but is basically a third unrelated premiss that doesn't follow from the previous two in any way)
Spelling error @2:19, "Conlusion" I think it should be Conclusion
What are you, 2015 or something? It's a spelling puzzle for the audience to solve.
Excellent! The world sorely needs this. If I may make a suggestion: on the Ted Cruz example, you make a political remark ("horrible reality"). This remark may put off people that may otherwise desperately need this Critical Thinking course. Keep up the good work. And thank you.
Brilliant, thanks
Very nice! Looking forward to the series being completed and available.
One quick blooper, at time mark 2:21 the word "conclusion" is spelled "conlusion." You may want to fix that before finalizing the video.
That reminds me of the cattail fallacy.
No cat has two tails.
A cat has one tail more than no cat.
Thus a cat has three tails.
Writing it reveals that no cat is not a nocat (say it 10 times in a row fast) - I guess this was designed to be said, not written.
At my University (in France), we have questions related to critical thinking, they're often at the end of the test so you have to answer quickly. You should give real life examples of logical fallacies, very excited for this, keep up the good work David.
Your enthusiasm and dedication to learning and logic inspire hope in humanity.
"And, I'm like, a smart person...."
That was awesome Pat, I'm sure I'm not the only one who got a chuckle out of it. But I have to know, did you plan that beforehand, or was that spur of the moment?
I caught that too. Subtle but harsh.
I understood in 2 minutes what I didn't understand at the online 2 lessons. And each lesson was 1.5 hours. THANK YOU
Your statements are true and valid. My Pre-Law professors taught me that back in the 1980's. Cannot wait for the class. I need a refresher course. Thank you Mr. Pakeman.
Mark
Great undertaking David. This is something the average American needs to have. It will benefit a lot of lives, I hope.
I think in addition to knowing what an argument is and what makes it true, where a lot of people struggle is just finding the premises in an argument in the wild. Explaining how to find a premise would be a good topic on its own.
This is awesome. To be fair, we actually learned this stuff in 10th grade math class... I think we were a bit of an outlier though. I only encountered it later when I took Symbolic Logic in college. I can definitely see how many people would never encounter this at all though.
Thank you David. The world, particularly this country (USA), really needs critical thinking skills.
This sole video is how I FINALLY grasped my Philosophy 100 level course.
excellent!
I have taken logic philosophy in college. It’s a laid-back subject in college. The first midterm was hard, the second one was so-so, the final was easy. The proofs on the computer were somewhat similar to proofs in geometry.
Finally! Yeehaw! 🤠
I'm looking forward to the series!
This sounds great David and urgently necessary!
I remember doing those types of arguments over 10 years ago in my first year of university. I remember finding the topic so fun and interesting.
I was in Singapore and this was actually being taught in schools across the country. Get to work, America.
Ok, I'm only say this once. Hamsters and dogs can fly. They just don't land worth a shit.
BTW,,.....Fido didn't land too well either.
Except there's a clear logical fallacy in your argument. Hamsters actually land a lot better than many other animals. Their fur creates enough air resistance to allow them to survive falls that, in proportion to body length, would crush the bones of a dog.
Wow, that was great stuff, can't wait for the full series.
very well done on critical thinking piece!!!
Great job looking forward to watching it!
Trump supporters need this stuff more than anyone. I've been in debates with some of them who can't even recognize when you point out a clear logical fallacy they've made. It's like pinning someone to the ground with their arm in a key lock and they still won't submit.
I am pretty sure they have their own equivalent and the ministry of education is already prepping it for the next school term: "Cryptical Thinking".
David this is amazing. I want this for my students.
Comment Section PSA: Remember everyone, feeding a Troll will not make them go away. It will only validate their behavior. Trolls will only adapt their arguments to whatever logic is presented. Call out troll behavior as it occurs and ignore their subsequent rage fueled attempts to continue the fight.
"And I'm like a smart person" lol nice one
I'd love to see more of that, that was excellent!
I'm going to be perfectly honest, I don't think I need this: it's been a strong suit of mine since I was a _kid._ However, I very much plan to watch the whole thing as soon as it becomes available to me. I'm curious if there's something I'm missing, or that I could get a lot better at, and fifteen parts sounds like a lot.
It is a class taught at university, mathematical logic and reasoning is the course in some places. Although it's for STEM students when art majors should really be taking it
I love this!
Took logic in college and it was one of my favorite classes. Right on 👍
This was taught in HS in 1970 and basic college 101 College courses in 1976 thru 1980's
Slight change I would make to the example @4: 00, I would change the line from "Paris is a city" to "Paris is the capital of a country, I think the throughline of the lesson would flow better.
Future lookin bright Crew!
Can't wait.
I kind of expected this kind of stuff to come up in science class when you talk about the validity of someone's experiment or if you are planning to create one? Or in math class I don't know, because I haven't studied science and I only passed math because my teacher didn't want to see me in his class for another year - but this simple statement in the video seems like a familiar warmer at secondary school, something that might come up in popular logic quiz book.
P1: All the boys in class wear blue sweaters
P2: Sam wears a blue sweater
Sam is a boy. True or false?
Unfortunately, most situations demanding critical thinking are not as simple and the demand of being more "sympathetic" or "humane" rather than "cold and logical" can cloud our judgement at least temporarily. It is also difficult to sometimes separate feelings from facts when it comes to certain situations, even if one can be quite logical in other instances.
i love this idea!
I loved philosophy in university, I agree Americans would benefit from learning critical thinking, epistemology, Plato etc...
Super idea
Been supporting on patron...hurry up you bums
P1: A student gets full credit on a SAM project if he or she gets at least 80 on it.
P2: Student got 92 on the first project on the first project for her accounting class.
P3: Student got 86 on the second project.
P4: Student got 94 on the third and last project.
C: Therefore, she gets full credit on all projects.
Valid and sound
1290Li
No, it’s not. You need an extra premise stating that there are only 4 projects in total.
Wenguang Jiang P3 says third and last
Miguel Jaimes
Which could mean the 3rd and the 5th, if there are 5 projects in total. Right?
Wenguang Jiang ahhhhhhhhhh. I see your point. Ambiguity. It does things lol.
Wenguang Jiang Expect there's nothing there that states a required number of projects in order to get a full credit. By simple reading comprehension, there's only three projects because of the word last being used in relation to the third project.
For example, in football whenever you hear 4th and goal, it means that any yards gained after 4 yard is a touchdown.
video starts at 2:11
It was an amaizing explanation
I don't mean to be picky, but if sound means that the argument is valid and has true premises, then an argument just needs to be sound as soundness includes validity. There is a redundancy in the statement that an argument needs to be valid and sound unless soundness doesn't include validity.
Ahhh I love these so much
this is amazing "jaw dropped"
Sorely needed for today times
I just threw my dog off the roof to prove he can fly
he can not fly.
david pakman now owes me compensation.
this is valid.
but it is not sound.
Casual Voters, independants,and Bernie Bros need classes on this subject.... ASAP.
+Dan Ames - Who still uses Clinton's sexist terminology. She tried the same thing with Obama.
Here’s some logic for you
P1: If you represent progressives and progressive issues, you can count on the progressive vote.
P2: Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment do not represent progressives or progressive issues.
C: Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment can not count on the progressive vote.
Does critical thinking in general assist people to avoid falling for con-artists' tricks, or would a class more specifically on con-artists' manipulation techniques and methods be more effective?
it is taught in college i had to take this class never took ethics before in my life and weir learning this exact subject
Thank-you for this David. I was trying to tell my parents about critical thinking while they were trying to explaine to me about Barack Obama's sex dungeon on Mars.
I believe I can fly
I believe I can touch the sky~
Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero.
All this time i thought that Paris is a German city
I graduated from pakman university lol good stuff
4:51 oh my god David you're such a geek.
I suggested some vids on critical thinking some time ago and was told I was being stupid.
How things change, hey?
so. when you said there should be more videos on critical thinking
someone called you names.
and that didn't make you want that content more because.....?
Man is a rational animal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a rational animal.
But ... Socrates is insane!
I could have used a more current example, but that's the way I read it 60 some years ago in Astounding (now Analog).
I'm like a smart person.
If you want to only accept deductive arguments, then you’re politically paralyzed. Should have mentioned induction and the paucity of true deductive arguments.
I had to take college philosophy to learn this.. this should be curriculum in fucking elementary school.
Hey, why shouldn't we make it a requirement that ANY political candidate have at least 4 years of university in certain field(s) to qualify for running? Combining the requirements that they not own any business, stocks or have any immediate family in a position of power any large company. Or, what about a school just for the purpose of creating the type of representatives the people need? I'm just so pissed that a bunch of idiots picked even bigger idiots to represent me. It's clear that in our society that the voice of a thousand fools drowns the voice of wisdom.
I think the examples used to demonstrate invalid arguments are just too obvious. For both the Paris argument and the political party argument the premises clearly do not lead to the conclusions and I doubt you would find many people who would think otherwise. In real life, most invalid arguments people encounter will sound much more reasonable than these examples and will be harder to spot. I suggest using one or more example invalid arguments where the conclusion is much more closely linked to the premises.
An example argument you could present might be:
P: The Catholic Church teaches that use of contraceptives for birth control is immoral.
P: Sarah is a Catholic.
C: Sarah believes that use of contraceptives for birth control is immoral.
If you are interested in looking at a list of all logical fallacies here is a link.
utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
Supersweet
I dropped my Patreon donation after I switched to membership. Unintentionally hurting your target....
maybe membership growth should also be factored into your targets?
I'm like a smart person
Its not best example of deductive reasoning but more like a clear example of the transitive property in algebra. Deductive reasoning should be about making a hypothesis/ intelligent guess from a correct general statement. Which is opposite of Inductive reasoning which is making a general statement based on specific observations.
Come david !! Cover the offshoredrilling !! NYC divests 30 billion from BIG OIL
Fake news! Fake news! Oh wait, what was this about? Never mind... X-)
great video, but don't just stop at this 15 part series. we need a full rebuttal to PragerU which spouts nothing but right wing talking points
retro hoc ergo propter hoc
Isn't logic taught in school anymore? I guess Trump never took that class
Way to inject political ideology into a completely objective topic. In my search for good videos concerning validity of arguments, your political cheap shots leave me searching elsewhere.
in other words, basic common sense?
Uh duh?
I fucking hate logic