This is like logic inception! Concepts keep progressively stemming out from the previous concept. The cumulative nature of the subject would be much too confusing to grasp without the videos, but thanks to Mark Thorsby I learn more every video. Thank you for taking your time to create these! Love how you're evidently passionate about the subject, helps to motivate me.
This video seriously helped me though this section. I couldn't wrap my head around some of the silly arguments that I had for an assignment. Like P1 All dogs are snakes P2 All snakes are birds C All dogs are birds The use of the circle method to see how they all relate to each other makes this concept click much easier. The class I'm in is online so it's a lot harder to get this kind of instruction. Thank you for making this video and the others. You now have a new subscriber and I will definitely be watching your other videos in the future.
Changing the bank argument to a valid one. "All banks are financial institutions. Wells Fargo is a bank. Therefore, Wells Fargo is a financial institution." Changing the terms around forms it into a sound argument. Thank you for these videos. I wish my instructor had the option to use this book. It seems to better explain what I've been struggling with for a few weeks now.
We may call the first inductive argument example strong and cogent also for the fact that the younger dinasaur bones are likely to be found in the upper stages of the soil rather than deeper as they die after the older dinasaurs and covered with land later on. Sorry about my English if my sentence wasn't understandable.
Professor Thorsby, I'm having trouble figuring out whether the following argument is valid or not: "Since the Department of Defense Building in Washington, D.C. has the shape of a hexagon, it follows that it has seven sides". Although both the premise and conclusion are false, the premise appears to support the conclusion. That's why I'd think that the argument is valid. It would be clearly valid if the conclusion stated that the building had six sides rather than seven.
how exactly is a weak inductive argument uncogent by necessity? If cogent just means that the argument's conclusion is true and uncogent is that it is false, can't we have a weak inductive argument that has a true conclusion? not sure how a weak inductive argument cant be cogent.
How the heck is it possible? a university instructor tries to explain same content for 5 classes and I still dont understand. But I understand this 30minute video! University system is collapsing....
It's unfortunate that mathematics and logic use "induction" in different way. Contradictory even, as mathematical induction is actually a deductive process. Things like that bother me.
An example of a valid argument against gay married would be: All homosexual invidious who are married are unhappy. Pedro is a homosexual married person. Therefore, Pedro in unhappy. This is a unsound valid deductive argument Obs: I'm totally in favour of love no matter the gender! :)
He's a professor so he makes this for his classes lol I'm taking his online class and he's great! He did cut the video shortly after so I'm sure he took care of his kid.
