Thank you Mark. This is really valuable, especially in these times of pandemic when we need to use our time more productively while in isolation. This also will help me as I look forward to starting my grad school soon in September. 🙏
Mark thank you for this! I am teaching debate and logic to gifted students and your articulate presentation has helped me to clarify how I can work with them in a clear and powerful way! 🙏
Really enjoying this course thanks much Mark! I'm watching it alternating with the Neso Academy Discrete Math course. Great combo, learning lots from both.
22:10 Is necessity and sufficiency reversed or is it that english isn't my mothertongue? In another relevant logic and philosophical courses i met and read that necessity and contingency are different and that which is necessary is more important that which is contingent. So, is it that i'm mixing two different and unrelated topics or their is a semantic relation between sufficient and contingent? Let me say that Prof. Mark Thorsby's approach and explanation of logic is very great!!
Geele Geedi No they are not reversed. There is a difference between contingency and necessity. If you meant to say “necessity is more important _than_ contingency” that is irrelevant, there is no difference in their importance. Saying something is more important than another is merely an opinion.
tyler 44, Contingency is possible to exist but not necessary to exist. For instance 10 superstars called MICHAEL JACKSON with all the same attributes can exist but not necessary to be there. We had one superstar called Michael jackson, but that was not necessary either. He just came because of luck and made us love music or at least appreciate. On the other hand, to have live on earth SUN is a necessary for live on this earth we live in. Can a wall and window be the same? No, here is the analogy, the window is a part of the whole which is the house and window is another part of the whole. So, window and wall are parts of greater object. Likewise contingency and necessity are two parts of the concept "possibility" in philosophy, logic and metaphysics etc. So, define your terms before you assume " oh, they are sometimes intersect and therefore the are the same always"
Geele Geedi If event X is contingent for event Y to occur, it may *not* be necessary for event X to occur to enable event Y to occur. If some event is necessary it must also be contingent(for lack of a better word necessary is more “powerful” than contingent). If some event X is sufficient it is all that is necessary for event Y(sufficient is more “powerful” than necessary).
Could someone help me understand the point that advice and warnings are non-inferential? It seems to me a warning obviously infers something else that is unsaid. “WARNING: FALLING ROCKS.” infers that the falling rocks could seriously hurt someone, no? What is the difference here?
You can't infer the conclusion of an argument from warnings and advice, because they are not arguments which by default makes them non-inferential. Like if i say, "Sally loves teaching her students", you can infer that Sally is a teacher, but it's non-inferential because i'm not making an argument, i'm just stating a fact. Same with "Warning: Falling Rocks", you can infer from it that rocks are likely to fall, but they're just trying to convey information, not argue that rocks may fall.
I was taught something different: The author of "Thank You For Arguing" says all things are arguments. The world is made up of an underlying matrix of arguments. A man rides his bike along a path: that's his argument saying he has right to do so. A wolf poops on a certain tree: that's his argument saying that's his territory. But you're only arguing for formal logic, not all logic.
An argument is a technical term which requires to have premises and conclusions i.e claims and Their Evidence. Is the sentence "Earth is Round" an argument Ofc not! It is just a proposition which asserts the case. People always asserts things but not everything asserted is an argument.
It is necessary that you asked this question for you to understand this topic. However it is also necessary that someone gives you an answer. If you have both your question and an answer, this is sufficient for you to understand.
It is a necessary condition of being healthy to eat vegetables, but it’s not a sufficient condition (one also needs to sleep well, exercise etc, which are all, likewise, necessary but not sufficient conditions). To lose weight, creating a caloric deficit is a sufficient condition. Think of sufficient conditions as having a direct correlation with only one variable, a necessary condition is one of several variables.
To drive a gasoline powered car, you must have gasoline in the fuel tank. This is a *necessary* condition. However, it's not *sufficient* because you still need other conditions (driver, a road, license, etc.). Conversely, driving the car is a *sufficient* condition for having gasoline. If gas is necessary to drive, then you sufficiently prove/guarantee that you have gas by driving the car.
try reading thhe piece of text that he shows on the video. actually the book says that these two statements are the same and are both sufficient and necessary arguments. the examples he gives (about rainy weather and A grade) are clearer.
Premise 1: the witnesses saw that man running away from the murder scene. Implicit premise 2: people who run away from murder scenes are suspects. Conclusión: it seems like he might be the murderer. It's an inductive argument. It doesnt prove the man did it (that would be a deductive argument), just that it is likely he did it. (inductive reasoning, probable causes)
The first "premise" is just a report. It's not a premise. The second is a claim. So it's not an argument whatsoever as to why anyone might seem to be a murderer.
Mark, I would have to disagree with your argument in relation to explanations in relation to the sky argument. It looks to me like you're trying to sell the book or justify it's use in the class. I have studied science and philosophy. It's an argument. You're denying that by using made-up terms in an effort to deny such, perhaps as some paradigm to justify the book's framework as if to justify the book's purchase.
I took a harder look at the argument. The premise is not valid because it fails to account for how the brain and eye perceive something to be blue. So, it's an argument but not sound.
