My Phil prof took a total of three hours to explain this and still no one in my class gets it, I understood this explanation by 1:48. FINALLY!! Thank you a million times over!
It's been seven years since your comment but still, I gotta agree, my logic professor has been "explaining" this simple subject for the last 4 classes and yet none of my classmates have fully understood it. Including me xD But finally with this video and like an hour of practice I get it now... not even difficult...
I had such a hard time understanding this in class, and also watched some other videos as well. This one made me understand it finally! Thank you so much!!!
My online "class" quite literally just started dropping these questions on us without an explanation of any kind. "Area where there AREN'T members of a category is shaded"? I'm glad I looked up this video. God forbid a class actually teaches you something, yeah?
im taking Phil 140 and i couldnt understand my prof when he tried to explain this. but with you, i learnt it here in this video. thank you so much, God bless your soul
it take me a week to find this vid. all the videos that I watched does not help me to understand how to prove the syllogism using venn diagram. u're an angel to us
i was using another browser and realized i couldnt like this video (THIS DERSEVES THOUSAND MORE!), so i switched with chrome just to give this video a thumbs up! thank you for making it easier for me to understand. i wish ive known your video way back in college. now, i am studying syllogism for another entrance exam.
Woooow my teacher tried to explain this and i thought it was very difficult, but now i can understand everything because of this video, thaks!!! I am from Mexico by the way......
Hi, studied this wayyy back in college, didn't understand a thing. Now, I'm thinking about going to school again and preparing for entrance exams (which usually involves this), and I finally understand it. Thank you so much!!!
Hi: Good question! It draws attention to the basic nature of Venn diagrams. They represent logical categories, not an imaginary space where things might be. The shading is meant to indicate that there are no things in the S category that do not have the characteristic represented by the P category, which is the same as saying All S are P, All baseballs are round. If there was an x in the overlap between the two circles THAT would represent that only some baseballs are round. It is common when people first encounter Venn diagrams to think of them as like containers with stuff in all of the circle, but they represent ideas (logical categories), not stuff. I hope this helps.
I wish this material made more sense. I'm in PHIL 210 and this is exactly what we're talking about in class and I'm completely lost. None of this makes any sense to me.
Don’t over think it and try to see the bigger perspective rather than focusing on particular points in isolation. The point is how to think about groups of things as all having the same characteristic, none of a group having the same characteristic, at least one of them having that characteristic, or at least one of them not having that characteristic. The diagrams are just a tool to make these relationships visual. Don’t think of them as like containers of real objects. They are illustrations of logical relationships, not containers. Their only value is to make the logical relationships (all, none, at least one, at least one doesn’t) easier to understand.
@@Micktification I know I'm late for saying this but thank you for such a detailed response. I'm in PHIL 215 this quarter and I'm still struggling with the whole idea of what this class is all about. I'm not giving up though.
Venn diagram circles don’t represent containers within which there are baseballs or other things. They represent the logical relationships between logical categories namely All, None, Some, and Some are not. The shading in the first diagram represents that for the category “baseballs” the only part of that category in the statement “All baseballs are round” is the part that overlaps with the category of things that are round. That’s the logical meaning of an A claim, which has the general form of All S are P. It says that logically, all things that are S are also part of the P category, hence the shading of the left side of the S circle. But that statement doesn’t tell us anything about the P category except that all S are P,. So we have no reason to do anything with the P side of the diagram. We don’t know just from the statement if all P’s are also S’s, which would require us to shade the right side of P. All we know is one logical characteristic of S, that all of whatever S represents are also categorized as P’s, whatever P represents. All dogs are brown, All fish are things that swim, All ducks are tables. The statements might be true or false about the actual world (what’s called material truth) but still be true logically, just as 2+2=4 regardless of what 2 things and 2 things and 4 things we are talking about. I might not have 4 marbles so 2 marbles plus 2 marbles may add up to 4 marbles if I had marbles, but I might not. It’s important to keep in mind the difference between the logical form of arguments and the material truth of what is being said. Logic is valuable in helping us evaluate claims by telling us what is logical but not necessarily what is actually the case in the real world (“Some dogs are brown” doesn’t tell us if all of them are brown, nor does “Some dogs are not brown” tell us none are). But if I said I added 2 marbles and 2 marbles and I have 5 marbles you’d say something is wrong because the logic/math doesn’t work out, and that that means we must have either made a math mistake or miscounted marbles. A and E claims tell us something definite but I and O claims may or may not. If “Some dogs are not brown” is true then “All dogs are brown” must be false. But “Some dogs are not brown” doesn’t tell is if no dogs are brown. The use of Venn diagrams can make these logical relationships visual, hence easier you understand, once you catch on to how they work.
Mick Presnell i think I’m starting to understand. I know the different forms and moods of arguments from my book, but what is so abstract to me is the idea of shading the diagram corresponding to the subject of the premise. Would it be wrong to think of shading in terms of impossibility? Like that first example the reason the Subject baseballs is shaded is because it’s impossible to have a baseball that not round based from the universal premise? Or for another example as to what i mean, if i said No S are P then the reason the overlap is shaded is because no s and p can be possible, but S alone and P alone can be. Would you think this is right? I appreciate your assistance by the way, when i saw when this was posted i didn’t expect anyone to reply, especially in the same day
Good question! In syllogistic logic there can only be two premises and a conclusion but the process should be the same if you apply Venn diagrams to longer arguments. Venn diagrams have been used for many purposes and I'm not an expert in their use. To use them with three statements and a conclusion would depend on how many different subjects and predicates there are. Each circle represents a different category. You would need four circles for four terms. Then fill in its relationship to the other term in the statement like you would for the three terms in a syllogism. If you can read the conclusion from the result the argument is valid. If not it is invalid. The trick is to diagram each statement at a time as if it was the only one you are drawing without being confused by the other circles.
+ammara tariq You put an X on a line between two categories when you know there is at least one of something in one of two areas, but you don't know which area it is in. X is used to indicate particular claims, shading is used to indicate universal claims. In the example of the IAI-4 syllogism about 6 minutes into the video I indicated the X should go on the line. This is because we didn't have enough information to determine if it should go in area 3 or 4. It could go in either one and the diagram would still say "At least one P is part of the M category." Since we don't know which one, we put the X on the line between 3 and 4. This is important because if we want to deductively infer that X is in area 3 or 4 we can't in this case, because statements have to be clearly true or clearly false. If it's on the line, the statements "X is in area 3" and ":X is in area 4" can't be answered definitely. That makes the statement ambiguous and therefore not allowed in a valid deductive argument. So in deductive reasoning, having an X on a line indicates the argument is invalid. We always have to deal with clear statements about something being in or not in a category. No fence sitting in deductive reasoning!
Few people major in this or other branches of logic. But basic logic is required for degrees in a number of fields, and more advanced logic is often required for math majors, and branches of computer science and computer engineering. The applications of fields of study are often not obvious at the beginning level. That said, I do actually enjoy doing logic so I suppose you could worry for me. We probably don't like the same movies either.but t I wouldn't feel sorry for you if you like the Jackass movies. Well, maybe a little.
@@haileyrafferty2372 I'm not sure what you mean but if you mean that something about logic disadvantages women, I would say that like in many other fields men have dominated it, and not because women can't be good at it. For instance, the movie Hidden Figures is about the real mathematician Kathrine Johnson struggling against male domination in NASA. "Computer" used to be a job description held mostly by women who did calculations for insurance companies, engineering firms, etc. for crap wages. Grace Hopper was a pioneer computer programmer for the U.S. Navy who helped define modern computer technology. I would blame the low number of women in fields of logic, math, and computer science on men, not logic, math, or computer science.
![KAYTRANADA - Witchy (feat. Childish Gambino) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jGK3YVmGZ3Y/mqdefault.jpg)
My Phil prof took a total of three hours to explain this and still no one in my class gets it, I understood this explanation by 1:48. FINALLY!! Thank you a million times over!
Literally! 😂 same here from India! 😂
It's been seven years since your comment but still, I gotta agree, my logic professor has been "explaining" this simple subject for the last 4 classes and yet none of my classmates have fully understood it. Including me xD
But finally with this video and like an hour of practice I get it now... not even difficult...
Thank you! Your voice is very relaxing to listen to!
Wow. This is one of the most efficient videos I've ever watched on youtube. Thank you!
Exactly
I had such a hard time understanding this in class, and also watched some other videos as well. This one made me understand it finally! Thank you so much!!!
Thank you so much!!!! I really needed this for my Phil 01 Final tomorrow!!!💯
Same here buddy!! Day after Tomorrow T_T
My college professor made this topic incredibly difficult to understand. I wouldn't be surprised if he was having marital issues.
OMG did you get that professor at MPC too?
@@joabpimentel6227 This was at Seneca college.
this is such a simple concept yet my textbook literally had no explanation for why they filled in certain areas omg thank you
this guy just replaces my two hour lecture with 8 min.... the educational side of youtube is powerful i tell ya
My online "class" quite literally just started dropping these questions on us without an explanation of any kind.
"Area where there AREN'T members of a category is shaded"? I'm glad I looked up this video. God forbid a class actually teaches you something, yeah?
sameee gotta love online class, specially when you're a first year student in cegep lmao
Why is this a thing
because some college classes are retarded sometimes
edit: why am i replying to a 9 month old comment.....
It's okay I am replying to a 6 month old comment...
It's okay. I'm replying to a 2 month old comment.
Its okay I'm replying to a year old comment
it"s okay, i'm replying to a 1 week old comment.
im taking Phil 140 and i couldnt understand my prof when he tried to explain this. but with you, i learnt it here in this video. thank you so much, God bless your soul
Even after 4 years, this video helped a dumb student like me :D. Thanks, Man.
it take me a week to find this vid. all the videos that I watched does not help me to understand how to prove the syllogism using venn diagram. u're an angel to us
What a succinct and beautiful video about this topic. Thank you for providing clarity where other professors might only confuse.
i was using another browser and realized i couldnt like this video (THIS DERSEVES THOUSAND MORE!), so i switched with chrome just to give this video a thumbs up! thank you for making it easier for me to understand. i wish ive known your video way back in college. now, i am studying syllogism for another entrance exam.
After watching a LOT of videos, I finally got it this time. Tysm!
i missed the day we went over this in class and i was struggling so hard i started crying😭 thank you for explaining this in such an easy way
Relatively easy stuff but my txtbook made ridiculously difficult to understand =, =
btw ty for the video.
Mine too.
Excellent video. Clear and easy to understand. Thank you!
Woooow my teacher tried to explain this and i thought it was very difficult, but now i can understand everything because of this video, thaks!!!
I am from Mexico by the way......
Hi, studied this wayyy back in college, didn't understand a thing. Now, I'm thinking about going to school again and preparing for entrance exams (which usually involves this), and I finally understand it. Thank you so much!!!
hope it went well!
This video saved my life
One of the best video I have ever watch ...thank you sir
So nice of you!
ib theory of knowledge student here, taking a quiz on this in 10 minutes and though i understood it, this made everything so much easier. thank you!!
This is beautifully explained. Finally a helpful video on venn diagrams.
This helped me out so much! I have my final tomoro, and I now feel confident I will Ace it!
+Robert “Rolex” Villescas Hope your test worked out. It might be too late now but feel free to post questions if it didn't.
+Mick Presnell I can't remember which test this was for, but I did pretty well! Ty!
This is the most helpful thing in life! Thank you so much! I never thought I would get it.
Thanks a loooootttttt !!!! This has really helped me for my exam
Well structured presentation, thanks a lot
HUGE HELP! Thank you for this video! Really cleared this up for me.
Hi: Good question! It draws attention to the basic nature of Venn diagrams. They represent logical categories, not an imaginary space where things might be. The shading is meant to indicate that there are no things in the S category that do not have the characteristic represented by the P category, which is the same as saying All S are P, All baseballs are round. If there was an x in the overlap between the two circles THAT would represent that only some baseballs are round. It is common when people first encounter Venn diagrams to think of them as like containers with stuff in all of the circle, but they represent ideas (logical categories), not stuff. I hope this helps.
Mick Presnell ahhhhhh? That makes a lot of sense, thank you for your videos.
Hi Mick Presnell. Thank you for your video. I do love it. Are you doing logical fallacies?
Thanks man, helped me so much.
Thank you so much for your explanation. Super easy to understand!
thank youuuu this video was extremely helpful
Glad you found it useful. Thanks for the comment.
Brain saver ! I had a headache trying to understand this for two hours 😩
I hate my critical thinking thinking class!
@Gunnar Lucian omg me too love it so much
Excellent teaching. Thank you so much!
Thank you for your clear video, very helpful!
Excellent! Very clear.
10/10 Best video on the subject!
This really helped me a lot, thank you so so much 🙌
This video is amazing 🔥.This video and "mentors guide channel " syllogism videos are the best videos for syllogism.
the color coding is an excellent idea and facilitates easy learning
Such a great video thank you so much!
What a wonderful video!
Thank you. Love your video so much
Ohhh really
Thank you for doing this video. The text book doesn't explain it nearly as clearly as you did...and neither did my prof
Thanks for the video❤
Thank you, this is superb!
Thank you sir
Very clear explanation
It helps me alot 👏
Tnx sir!!
This was of great help.
It is not profs just that these concepts require a fair bit of digestion.
Now....I get it. had to come to RUclips because the prof was not so clear.
Extremely helpful! I wish you could be my teacher, she is very bad at explaining it to everyone lol.
2:06 It's the rabbit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail!
Thank you for sharing and nicely clarifying the subject matter. ^_^
Excellent video. Could do with more examples to practice. Thanks a lot.
very well explained sir
so far so good
If everyone on earth learned this, there would be no fights anymore
I need some more examples. My lecturer made this topic more complicated
this summary helps a ton! my book is confusing. Thank you :)
You're welcome babe
Hey can you help me with my test
Shanae Peart yes homie do you have Instagram or something so we can chat? I can send you some notes
@@shanaepeart4328 hmu my IG is Neon_Babydoll
you covered "Some" and "all" , but what about "No"?....
الله يكرمك يا عم الحاج
مساء الخير
@@ramzybakir6475 مش عايز تتعارف عليا خالص
@@yahiasonbol4709للتعارف الجاد فقط
Great video. Could have been even better with some worked examples when the Middle Term was introduced. I got a bit lost at that point.
thanks it works
sooo helpful thankyou
you are a god
Thank you so much
THANK YOU 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Well done!
Excellent
Thanks
very good. complete
THANK YOU
What about O type D':
I wish this material made more sense. I'm in PHIL 210 and this is exactly what we're talking about in class and I'm completely lost. None of this makes any sense to me.
Don’t over think it and try to see the bigger perspective rather than focusing on particular points in isolation. The point is how to think about groups of things as all having the same characteristic, none of a group having the same characteristic, at least one of them having that characteristic, or at least one of them not having that characteristic. The diagrams are just a tool to make these relationships visual. Don’t think of them as like containers of real objects. They are illustrations of logical relationships, not containers. Their only value is to make the logical relationships (all, none, at least one, at least one doesn’t) easier to understand.
@@Micktification I know I'm late for saying this but thank you for such a detailed response. I'm in PHIL 215 this quarter and I'm still struggling with the whole idea of what this class is all about. I'm not giving up though.
Thanks alot.
I dont understand at all. For the first Venn Diagram, why is S shaded? Isn't S Baseballs? why is the middle baseballs?
Venn diagram circles don’t represent containers within which there are baseballs or other things. They represent the logical relationships between logical categories namely All, None, Some, and Some are not. The shading in the first diagram represents that for the category “baseballs” the only part of that category in the statement “All baseballs are round” is the part that overlaps with the category of things that are round. That’s the logical meaning of an A claim, which has the general form of All S are P. It says that logically, all things that are S are also part of the P category, hence the shading of the left side of the S circle. But that statement doesn’t tell us anything about the P category except that all S are P,. So we have no reason to do anything with the P side of the diagram. We don’t know just from the statement if all P’s are also S’s, which would require us to shade the right side of P. All we know is one logical characteristic of S, that all of whatever S represents are also categorized as P’s, whatever P represents. All dogs are brown, All fish are things that swim, All ducks are tables. The statements might be true or false about the actual world (what’s called material truth) but still be true logically, just as 2+2=4 regardless of what 2 things and 2 things and 4 things we are talking about. I might not have 4 marbles so 2 marbles plus 2 marbles may add up to 4 marbles if I had marbles, but I might not. It’s important to keep in mind the difference between the logical form of arguments and the material truth of what is being said. Logic is valuable in helping us evaluate claims by telling us what is logical but not necessarily what is actually the case in the real world (“Some dogs are brown” doesn’t tell us if all of them are brown, nor does “Some dogs are not brown” tell us none are). But if I said I added 2 marbles and 2 marbles and I have 5 marbles you’d say something is wrong because the logic/math doesn’t work out, and that that means we must have either made a math mistake or miscounted marbles. A and E claims tell us something definite but I and O claims may or may not. If “Some dogs are not brown” is true then “All dogs are brown” must be false. But “Some dogs are not brown” doesn’t tell is if no dogs are brown. The use of Venn diagrams can make these logical relationships visual, hence easier you understand, once you catch on to how they work.
Mick Presnell i think I’m starting to understand. I know the different forms and moods of arguments from my book, but what is so abstract to me is the idea of shading the diagram corresponding to the subject of the premise. Would it be wrong to think of shading in terms of impossibility? Like that first example the reason the Subject baseballs is shaded is because it’s impossible to have a baseball that not round based from the universal premise? Or for another example as to what i mean, if i said No S are P then the reason the overlap is shaded is because no s and p can be possible, but S alone and P alone can be. Would you think this is right? I appreciate your assistance by the way, when i saw when this was posted i didn’t expect anyone to reply, especially in the same day
Need your help
It doesn't make sense. What is the actual point in this?
sir what about three statements and 1 conclusion how do we do ?
Good question! In syllogistic logic there can only be two premises and a conclusion but the process should be the same if you apply Venn diagrams to longer arguments. Venn diagrams have been used for many purposes and I'm not an expert in their use. To use them with three statements and a conclusion would depend on how many different subjects and predicates there are. Each circle represents a different category. You would need four circles for four terms. Then fill in its relationship to the other term in the statement like you would for the three terms in a syllogism. If you can read the conclusion from the result the argument is valid. If not it is invalid. The trick is to diagram each statement at a time as if it was the only one you are drawing without being confused by the other circles.
plz tell me in which case we place 'X' on line???
+ammara tariq You put an X on a line between two categories when you know there is at least one of something in one of two areas, but you don't know which area it is in. X is used to indicate particular claims, shading is used to indicate universal claims. In the example of the IAI-4 syllogism about 6 minutes into the video I indicated the X should go on the line. This is because we didn't have enough information to determine if it should go in area 3 or 4. It could go in either one and the diagram would still say "At least one P is part of the M category." Since we don't know which one, we put the X on the line between 3 and 4. This is important because if we want to deductively infer that X is in area 3 or 4 we can't in this case, because statements have to be clearly true or clearly false. If it's on the line, the statements "X is in area 3" and ":X is in area 4" can't be answered definitely. That makes the statement ambiguous and therefore not allowed in a valid deductive argument. So in deductive reasoning, having an X on a line indicates the argument is invalid. We always have to deal with clear statements about something being in or not in a category. No fence sitting in deductive reasoning!
Got it!! thank you so much. God bless you.
efficient
Čemu to, čemuu?
The mode of the diagram is what u don’t understand
this comes under a topic called logic but it's so illogical 😭
I find this subject to be a joke and I worry greatly for anyone who has chosen to major in it
Few people major in this or other branches of logic. But basic logic is required for degrees in a number of fields, and more advanced logic is often required for math majors, and branches of computer science and computer engineering. The applications of fields of study are often not obvious at the beginning level. That said, I do actually enjoy doing logic so I suppose you could worry for me. We probably don't like the same movies either.but t I wouldn't feel sorry for you if you like the Jackass movies. Well, maybe a little.
Mick Presnell I find it to be the study of mansplaining
@@haileyrafferty2372 I'm not sure what you mean but if you mean that something about logic disadvantages women, I would say that like in many other fields men have dominated it, and not because women can't be good at it. For instance, the movie Hidden Figures is about the real mathematician Kathrine Johnson struggling against male domination in NASA. "Computer" used to be a job description held mostly by women who did calculations for insurance companies, engineering firms, etc. for crap wages. Grace Hopper was a pioneer computer programmer for the U.S. Navy who helped define modern computer technology. I would blame the low number of women in fields of logic, math, and computer science on men, not logic, math, or computer science.
Mick Presnell no it’s an over explanation of what seems obvious to most
>I would blame the low number of women in fields of logic, math, and computer science on men
And what premises lead you to that conclusion?