What makes an argument valid?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- In philosophical logic, the term "valid" has a precise meaning. John Corvino explains it here.
Dr. John Corvino is a speaker, writer, philosophy professor, and Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
John Corvino's Better Argument series was filmed at Wayne State University by James Wright and Mayabeth Jagosz, with funding from the American Philosophical Association.
I really like every single video of this guy, seriously. P.S first comment
10th like.
A correction of sorts: he gives two definitions of "valid" or "validity" here and this is the correct one: "if the premises WERE true, then the conclusion would be true." This helps understand why his example argument -- (1) If my office is in Detroit, then my office is in France; (2) my office is in Detroit; (3) therefore, my office is in France" -- is valid: if those premises WERE true, then the conclusion would have to be true: so, imagine that premise 1 were true and Detroit was indeed in France.
The mistaken definition "if the premises ARE true, then the conclusion is true" doesn't help with this type of example, and make it hard to see why this argument's premises lead to the conclusion, since the premises are not true.
So, again, this is the correct definition, which he gives but not all the time here: "if the premises WERE true, then the conclusion would be true."
Holy crap. 8 hours of studying and trying to figure out validity and all it took was a 4 minute video to finally understand.
You dressed french for 2 seconds of video. Sub
Fax
Great videos. But I think you should space them out more. Upload for example once or twice every week. Keeps your audience more engaged than suddenly uploading ten videos and then being silent for a while. Plus the RUclips algorithm rewards it.
We should send this video to every religious person
Logic cannot prove something is true.
Logic removes all that is untrue.
This leaves that which is true without proving it is true.
This allows Truth to be replaced by a new Truth.
The Earth was flat. Now it is a sphere.
Therefore, Truth cannot be said to be absolute.
Only Axioms are accepted as Absolute Truth.
A sculptor of clay elephants was asked what mysterious technique he uses to make such truly handsome clay elephants. The artist’s elephants look so true!
The sculptor replied, “I remove all that isn’t elephant.”
problem is that not everybody minds their ps and qs.
I did wonder where you went. Welcome back :)
You're better than my prof
Dr. Corvino
I love the work you do!
Thank you for taking up this issue, the concise clarity and irrefutable logic that you apply to this issue is such a relief and so good to hear. Please keep doing what you’re doing.
If P then Q
Q therefore P
Nope.
If it is raining then the grass is wet. The grass is wet therefore the sprinklers have turned on.
There is a difference between If Then statements and If And Only If statements.
The converse of an If Then statement is not necessarily true.
Converse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_(logic)
If and only if
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if
The fact that this video only has 17k views and 12 comments says a lot about RUclips 😭