Chapter 1.1: Introduction to logic 

I liked this before seeing how this relates to the video. I went down to like it again, forgetting I had already done so and actually unliked the comment by accident! I wish I could like it twice!

So do I

Your premises appear to be both valid and sound but ... XD

The conclusion of your comment is: you like humble people. 😂 am i right?

@@Ouzyman hee hee :D

Why, thank you.

What a god

Where does he mention that logical arguments just be well supported by reliable evidence?

Thanks

Meet you in heaven

He didn't tell you anything in this video that you didn't already know naturally .

@@williamspringer9447 You just hatin lol

@@williamspringer9447 putting terms to these things and conceptualizing them consciously is helpful to making sure that you understand the world right and are actually making logical as opposed to just impulsive or misguided decisions

s n a c c••• I wasn't clear enough. Here's some information about the science of Logic that was suppressed in this lecture..••• The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is hard to lie to people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of logic or the art of rhetoric. ••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, "Rhetoric" •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition •••••••••• "The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded." -John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) •••••••••• "Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) •••••••••• "The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains." -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

How can you not adduce this intuitively

"Problem of induction"

Μαρία Καστανά Maria Kastana•••• This guy taught you nothing about reasoning that you didn't already know and do naturally . When was the last time that you believed an invalid deductive argument?

@@williamspringer9447 truth bomb dropped 😂

@@williamspringer9447 I naturally know that fish can swim so why is it always mentioned in the biology books? What a waste of space, right?

9 out of 10 Americans believe that man walked on the Moon. What logical errors have Moon landing believers commuted ?

@@williamspringer9447 enlighten me dumbass?.

DANIEL SHALAM •••• This guy didn't teach you anything about reasoning that you didn't already know and do naturally. It's the stuff that he suppressed about the science of Logic that's important .

jon bailey ••••• Victor leaves out some pretty important stuff in this video. He made the whole thing without once using the word "evidence".

the video discussed the topic in the title? Mind blown… 🤯🤨

He left some pretty important stuff out .

What's that???​@@williamspringer9447

which subject is this could you please kindly tell me ??

@@friedrichnietzsche2982 logic - branch of philosophy

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hfD42CVsePI.html

Deductive reasoning in reality.....is a way to form tautologies. They do not produce any new knowledge , they only state the obvious. There is zero risk thus the return is low. In science all our theories make claims which we utilize them as predictions. This means that our risk is high (both theories are open to future falsification) but the return is also high (we have theories that produce useful descriptions, accurate predictions and technical applications). Conclusions by Deduction can never be used to form law like generalizations. They only address the specific case they describe.

he didnt say it was in essence inductive tho, he said it was largely not

@Nicholas Gaspar ••••••••• Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• The science of logic itself is the creation of deduction, and I don't believe that many people would describe it as a tautology .

Jason •••• In order for you to believe an argument logically , it should be (1) inferred from premises that you've verified with solid evidence to be true ; (2) properly considered all known relevant evidence ; and (3) come to a conclusion that you can verify follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the premises . •••• Do you believe I. Einstein's theory of relativity logically ? Or do you believe it because authority figures told you that it was true ?

寂筑羽 •••• He forgot to explain how to determine if a deductive argument is sound or an inductive argument cogent .Why do you suppose he did that?

Check out "Thinking to Some Purpose " by L. Susan Stebbing .

rohit singh chauhan•••• He stripped the science of Logic of its usefulness . That's how he made it so simp!e .

He left out crucial information.

Gloria Addah••••• Here's some stuff about the science of Logic that was conspicuously absent from this video. •••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• 'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary •••••••••• 'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, Posterior Analytics •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.' -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition •••••••••• 'The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded.' -John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing •••••••••• 'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.' -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy •••••••••• 'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.' -Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 •••••••••• 'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••

I'm currently studying in in university

Reem Hesham•••• Why are you thanking him ? He didn't teach you anything about reasoning that you didn't already know and do naturally. He hid the good stuff.

This lecture was deceptive due to crucial information being omitted .

You are not 100% water therefore you are not water

There's a fallacy in the argument: you contain water, but not necessarily the same water billionaires drink. So it's our use of the word "water" that causes the problems - the translation of the phrases into logical propositions should alert us to this (but would it?)

Water is also expelled from the body through urination, therefore, you are also pee.

Malik Hearon ••••• This guy managed to get through the whole video without once saying the word "evidence". Logical arguments must be proper!y supported by solid evidence .

@@williamspringer9447 Premise is just another word for evidence really. I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

No, it's still valid, but it got false premises led to false conclusion Remember, argument validity is just about the form, not the content

Abel Philosophy •••• I'd like to hear him use the word evidence at least one time ,instead of assumption .

Why do you suggest he uses 'therefore' instead of 'so'? In the English language, one can use 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'hence'. They all mean the same thing. They are ALL formal adverbs.

Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.' -Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary ••••••••••

Someone Silence ••• When's he going to mention that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence?

He's using a hypothetical definition that Dutchmen are not humble to show that the form of the argument is valid. Validity has nothing to do with falsity.

The interesting thing is that he never explained how to determine if a deductive argument is sound or and inductive argument cogent . I wonder why ?

Samah Ali ••••• That's what I thought too. Why didn't he ever mention that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence ?