thank you very much! you earned a like and a new subscriber :D I love the little Latin lesson at the end part haha , definitely gonna use that a lot in our debates.
Hey brother, I've watched a couple of your videos and I want to know how did you study the laws of logic? I am very interested in learning logic, and one-day teaching others, but I want to know a good place to start.
Amazing way of teaching. That is a very simple and concise way of delivering lectures even a shepherd can get it instantly. When I saw your channel history, there were only two videos unfortunately. I would like to suggest you to come back to your channel and work on it. Thanks.
А Вы в курсе, что уже разработана (аналогичная менделеевской) таблица для ЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЭЛЕМЕНТОВ? (см. 07-04. ПЕРИОДИЧЕСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЭЛЕМЕНТОВ (ПСЛЭ): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-S1YHvYEleto.html ) и составлен список из 32-х типов суждений, включающих два понятия (две логических переменных)? (07-05. ПОЛНАЯ СИСТЕМА СУЖДЕНИЙ СИЛЛОГИСТИКИ ПСЛО-2: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QOmjAtANOvQ.html ) А тут - о совместимости понятий: 06-09. АЛГЕБРАИЧЕСКИЙ РАСЧЁТ СИЛЛОГИЗМОВ - ЭТО ПРОСТО! (суждения, кванторы, модусы): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-a8A3DI9qUYY.html :-)
It's so great when people smack their lips or make that kissing sound when they want to punctuate a thought. Good God damn it if this video wasn't right with such. Amen I hope you learn to make your point with fewer mouth noises then just the words. Thank you for posting this video though.
This is really helpful, can I ask you a question? is this a syllogism? All A is caused by B Therefore all cases of B result in A Is this a specific type of faulty reasoning? Hope you can help me, thanks
I think it's better if you work with "if p, then q" format. The words "cause" and "case" can be ambiguous. "if p, then q. Affirm p, q follows." Syllogism requires 3 terms.
All A is caused by B, but that doesn't mean that B causes only A. B can cause things other than A, so it isn't true that "all cases of B result in A". It may or may not be true.
خلاصة كتاب الرد على المنطقيين لإبن تيمية : قسم ابن تيمية المنطق إلى قسمين : القسم الأول : المنطق البشري ، وهو الذي يعرفه الناس قبل ارسطوا . وهذا لا خلاف بين البشر جميعهم في صحته . القسم الثاني : المنطق الأرسطي ، وهو الذي ابتكره ارسطوا . والمنطق الذي ابتكره ارسطوا هو أمران فقط ؛ وهما : الأمر الأول : الحد المنطقي . الأمر الثاني : القياس المنطقي . وهذان الأمران هما الذان تكلم عليما ابن تيمية في كتابه الرد على المنطقيين . فقال في الرد على الحد المنطقي : أنه يستحيل أن يُعَرَّف شيء بالحد المنطقي . وقال في الرد على القياس المنطقي ، أنه قياس صحيح ، لكن طريقة الوصول به إلى المطلوب عَسِرة ، ويحتمل الوقوع في الخطأ بسبب عسره . وخير منه قياس التمثيل الذي يستخدمه الفقهاء في الإستدلال ، ويتكلم عليه الأصوليين في أصول الفقه ضمن الأدلة الشرعية..............
A premise is a proposition that logically proves or supports a conclusion Conclusion is a proposition that logically follows from the premise Argument consist of a premise and a conclusion Syllogism consists of 3 propositions Major: All men are mortal Minor: Socrates is a man Conclusion: therefore, Socrates is mortal Show one of the premises is false Show that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises Non sequitur - it does not follow Notes:
The claim that the fundemental difference between Humans and Animals is a claim frequently espouced. It's abjectly fallacious, though. First of all 'Humans' ARE animals, so the distinction you're making between the two is erroneous. But, HERE'S the interesting part. There was a Gorilla named Koko who gained considerable notoriety due to her impressively extstensive vocabulary that she communicated through 'Gorilla Sign Language'. It is said that her vocabulary exceeded 1, 000 words. The words were not exclusively nouns referencing tangible objects. She learned adjectives to express 'abstract' concepts. Ok... So... That may or may not impress you, BUT HOLD ON... THERE'S MORE! Her trainer was a Woman named Francine Patterson. I've seen some videos featuring the pair where Francine shares anecdotes and facts Re/ Koko's language comprehension. There was one video in particular that impressed me profoundly! The video may still be on RU-vid, so don't hesitate to search for it. In this video, Francine speaks of Koko's Unbievable Ability to concoct 'COMPOUND WORDS' to convey something for which she had no 'signs' for. For instance, one day, Francine gave Koko a cookie or some treat that was 'stale'. Koko did not have a 'sign' to denote 'stale', so she 'signed' 'rock' and then 'candy'. Another example was pertained to a ring that Francine was wearing. Koko wanted to reference it, but she had no 'sign' for 'ring', so she ingeniously 'signed' 'finger' and 'bracelet'. So... You may or not consider the rudimentary 'signing' to qualify as 'reasoning', but surely you concede that her ability to CREATE HER OWN COMPOUND WORDS is proof positive that she was indeed using reason. That unbelievable feat cannot be accomplished devoid of the ability to reason. So... there you have it. I also recall seeing a video of an Orangutan picking up a saw and sawing a wooden board in half. The narrator explicitly mentioned that the Orangutan had NEVER seen anyone use a saw before. This wasn't was case of 'Ape See, Ape Do'. The Orangutan analyzed the properties of the tool and effectively reasoned that it would be suitable for 'cutting' boards into pieces. You might say, 'I think the narrator was lying'. Theoretically? But, why? What does some unknown, random narrator stand to gain by lying? Nothing. So, we may as well take him at his word. I'm very confident that you can find even more videos on You Tube of our Closest Genetic cousins (Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Orangutans, and Gorillas employing simple reasoning methodologies in order to accomplish very practical and downright impressive things. To put things in perspective, there are literally hundreds of millions of severely retarded humans who lack the cognitive wherewithal to not only create Compound Words, but to speak at all. So, don't downplay the intellectual advances of our Great Ape cousins. Yes, Animals are capable of abstract thought and using reason.
Not bad. There is clearly a shortage of videos about the logic at the moment, maybe because it is not so popular nowadays. But don't repeat things twice. Don't repeat things twice.
Nice so we can use syllogisms to prove God's existence as true: *All words exist* *God is a word* *Therefore God exists* It is not necessary to know all the words in the world for my premise to be true: it only needs to be understood that if one knew all the words in existence then that would only prove the truth of my premise. The etmyology of _word_ is from Proto-Indo European (PIE) _*were-_ "speak, say", therefore whatever one is able to utter in speech and make statements about must exist. If we look at my syllogism another we can say: *If God doesn't exist then neither do atheists: because you cannot be against that which never existed in the first place* *If God doesn't exist then Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not exist since they all lay claim to the Bible* Trying to separate God from reality and the Bible is like trying to separate water from hydrogen and oxygen: it just doesn't work.
