CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Truth and Validity [HD] 

Thanks, this simplified it for me

No we just check the validity not the truth

@@user-ji5bd6pc6k nobody said so but you.

No, some premises could not be based on truth, yet the only thing that matters if the reasoning that brings you to the conclusion is valid. It is how you use what you are given regardless of its truth.

True≠Truth

Because you might have a mental defect.

Me too 😭😭😭

have u understood it now?

starts at 1.20. make sure you understand the conclusion. If it is logic it is valid as long as it is supported logically by the premises provided.

Ok, Paul.

hey,what is the difference between "truth and validity in language " and "truth and validity in argument"

@@iVideoCommenter hahaha

Don't worry "Untamed", I'll give you a nice and wet presentation after I tame you. And nothing we go over will be too fast, on the contrary it will be agonizingly slow my dear.

@@ayushrauniyar744 The difference between truth and validity in language comes about when one is standing on the bow of a great sea vessel, in a half daze, salty sea mist spraying upon his face, one foot on the boat, one foot in the sea. As for the case of arguments, they usually involve rum, sea sickness, lack of lasses, and a plurality of seamen.

The dog's name is Split, premise one: all dogs are gods, premise two: all gods are holy, premise three: Split's name is ironic, since all dogs are gods, and all gods are holy, yet Split's name is Split! Thus his name is ironic. Here's another example, Split is an old dog, of course he is though, because every dog is a god. Logic would have us believe that he cannot be taught new tricks, but one might then ask: "But if dogs are gods, gods can do whatever they want (learn new tricks)." This is not the case though, since gods already know all of the tricks, are old, and are all dogs.

That is in the playlist.

"Good video that I get to watch for free, but I just wish you would have given me more. I'm not satisfied, nor will I look in the playlist to see if the thing I'm complaining about is there."

@@sebastianswan7975 Wow, a person with a triple digit IQ.

"I was under the assumption that all arguments to be believed were based in fact" So was I. "all valid arguments are based on facts." I was also under this assumption. We don't necessarily have to teach people this. All sorts of things are happening, it's total and utter chaos. I'm not particularly scared, but I should be.

It's far worse than math. There's not one shred of common sense in this so-called "logic."

It's simple. If you can prove what you say by using facts then your argument is valid. If what you say is based on assumptions or guesses, your argument is invalid. I'm happy to answer any other questions you have

@@portlions1 define "common sense"

@@shiperobin ​ No, "logic" is most certainly not based on facts and evidence. The "logic" class I was forced to endure in university made it very clear that the point of formal "logic" is not to discern or appraise truth. I dug out my old book so I could quote it to you. On pages 19-20 of K. Cordell Carter's "The Hottest Logic Book on Earth," it says: "The Greeks soon identified the two defects by which any argument can be vitiated: (i) its premises can fail to support its conclusion, or (ii) its premises can be false. The first, which has to do with the validity of the argument, is a matter of logic, the second is not." Ergo, whether an argument is true or false makes no difference in the system of "logic." Over and over the book says that truth is not the goal of "logic." Rather, it is merely concerned with the structure of arguments. All over in the text you have fun and contradictory statements like, "validity does not insure that the conclusion of an argument will be true," "each conclusion could be false even though all the premises are true," and "'true' and 'false' apply to individual sentences but never to arguments." Formal "logic" was the single most ludicrous thing I ever studied in my five years at university. It's totally detached from real life and serves absolutely zero function in the everyday world. The only use it has is in a "logic" class, making it the most self-serving "science" I've ever encountered. And this is further confirmed by the fact that logicians, so-called, can't even agree on which systems they're going to use, but keep revising them! A science where truth is the currency doesn't need to keep revising itself. A person with authentic common sense and a mind that actually functions has no use whatsoever for formal "logic." I love Thomas Jefferson's criticisms of Plato (as you know, he was Aristotle's mentor, and the latter created the bogus "science" of "logic"). His biting review of Plato's reasoning capabilities, or lack thereof, is one I heartily second and recommend. I end with his quote, which though seemingly on politics and religion, applies with equal validity to the whole debauched system of "logic" originated by corrupt Greek thinkers: "I am just returned from one of my long absences, having been at my other home for five weeks past. having more leisure there than here for reading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plato’s republic. I am wrong however in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviest task-work I ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up some of his other works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue. while wading thro’ the whimsies, the puerilities, & unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this? how the soidisant Christian world indeed should have done it, is a piece of historical curiosity. but how could the Roman good sense do it? and particularly how could Cicero bestow such eulogies on Plato? altho’ Cicero did not wield the dense logic of Demosthenes, yet he was able, learned, laborious, practised in the business of the world, & honest. he could not be the dupe of mere style, of which he was himself the first master in the world. with the moderns, I think, it is rather a matter of fashion and authority. education is chiefly in the hands of persons who, from their profession, have an interest in the reputation and the dreams of Plato. they give the tone while at school, and few, in their after-years, have occasion to revise their college opinions. but fashion and authority apart, and bringing Plato to the test of reason, take from him his sophisms, futilities, & incomprehensibilities, and what remains? in truth he is one of the race of genuine Sophists, who has escaped the oblivion of his brethren, first by the elegance of his diction, but chiefly by the adoption & incorporation of his whimsies into the body of artificial Christianity. his foggy mind, is for ever presenting the semblances of objects which, half seen thro’ a mist, can be defined neither in form or dimension. yet this which should have consigned him to early oblivion really procured him immortality of fame & reverence. the Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from it’s indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power & pre-eminence. the doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained. their purposes however are answered. Plato is canonised: and it is now deemed as impious to question his merits as those of an Apostle of Jesus. he is peculiarly appealed to as an advocate of the immortality of the soul; and yet I will venture to say that were there no better arguments than his in proof of it, not a man in the world would believe it. it is fortunate for us that Platonic republicanism has not obtained the same favor as Platonic Christianity; or we should now have been all living, men, women and children, pell mell together, like the beasts of the field or forest. yet ‘Plato is a great Philosopher,’ said La Fontaine. but says Fontenelle ‘do you find his ideas very clear’?-‘oh no! he is of an obscurity impenetrable.’-‘do you not find him full of contradictions?’-‘certainly, replied La Fontaine, he is but a Sophist.’ yet immediately after, he exclaims again, ‘oh Plato was a great philosopher.’-Socrates had reason indeed to complain of the misrepresentations of Plato; for in truth his dialogues are libels on Socrates.-but why am I dosing you with these Ante-diluvian topics? because I am glad to have some one to whom they are familiar, and who will not recieve them as if dropped from the moon." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814

@@portlions1 all of that is true. Logic is merely a tool you can use to find the truth. You can use logic to rationalize nonsense to idiots (which seems like your afraid of) but that's just not cool. Logic itself is not truth. It's just a vehicle to get us there. Again, define "common sense". You can copy paragraphs from a book( I got a housefull of the darn things), I could quote Plato and Aristotle to you all day but until you make your own argument, you haven't really said anything have you? And just because you can't understand it, it doesn't mean it's wrong. I understand your problems with logic and those are legitimate criticisms. But formal logic and practical logic are two different things. Acedemics tend to have a tendency to naval gaze a bit too much, but you can't just throw out logic altogether because you personally don't like it. Isnt it the mark of intelligence to be able to entertain ideas you might not believe?

That's a great question. One very simply answer is this: in a valid argument, to deny the conclusion while affirming the premises would lead to a contradiction (something like saying "X both is and is not the case at the same time"). For example, in the argument "All humans are mortal; Socrates is a human; therefore, Socrates is mortal," *if* I accept the truth of the premises and deny the truth of the conclusion, I am in effect asserting that all human beings are both mortal and not mortal. (That is, if I claim that the premises are true but that Socrates is not mortal, I am saying that (1) all humans are mortal AND (2) there is at least one human who is not mortal.) In short, there is no need to appeal to some mysterious, subjective intuition about what "follows logically from" means. One can simply appeal to the principle that it's bad to contradict oneself. I say this is a simple answer because it's the kind one would get in an intro-level class. In a higher level philosophy or logic class, one would discover that there is actually a fair amount of debate about how to answer your question.

@@alexfeldman8872 cool thanks man! Would you know where I could find material on it?

@@jamescarter3738 "in a valid argument, to deny the conclusion while affirming the premises would lead to a contradiction" Perhaps. "One can simply appeal to the principle that it's bad to contradict oneself." One can. "I say this is a simple answer because it's the kind one would get in an intro-level class." How thoughtful of you. "In a higher level philosophy or logic class, one would discover that there is actually a fair amount of debate about how to answer your question." Jesus Christ almighty, really? Could that really truly be the case? Good lord, who knew that there actually is a fair amount of debate about how to answer his question? I sure didn't, I thought it was either right, or wrong. White or black, hot or cold, male or female, sun or moon, night or day, wake or sleep, live or dead, no nuance involved at all or debate to be found or had. Almost like if one were to take or not take their medication, there is no way to meander between the two options, it just is or it isn't. I didn't take my medication today, that's a factoid which doesn't provide room for debate. Now, should I have taken my medication is a completely different story, and my doctor would certainly love to debate me on that matter, but I digress.

I saw this dope trick that might help you. Try adding box or boxes to the nouns of these sentences and it will become clear to you where you are falling short. I’ll show you: P1: All Dog BOXES are in the Animal BOX P2: All Australian Shepard BOXES are in the Animal BOX C - All Australian Shepard BOXES are in the dog BOX. Do you see how the conclusion is false? In real life, we know Australian Shepards are Dogs; however, argument validity is not concerned with what is FACTUALLY true; it is concerned only about IF THE PREMISES were true, would the conclusion NECESSARILY/ABSOLUTELY be true? In this case,IMAGINE we know nothing about what Australian Shepards APART FROM WHAT IS TOLD US. We know that Dogs and Australian Shepards are both ANIMALS; however there is NO PROOF OR JUSTIFICATION to say that an Australian Shepard is a dog from the premises. ALL DOGS ARE ANIMALS, BUT NOT ALL ANIMALS ARE DOGS. THEREFORE, JUST BECAUSE A DOG IS AN ANIMAL, does NOT mean AN AUSTRALIAN SHEPARD IS A DOG. Hope this helps, bro/sis✌🏽

I don't speak very much Spanish, but I can tell you seem to be appreciative. 😉

@@earthshaker5842 gracias

"I met a race of liars." Okay antisemitism might be acceptable at your house, but it has no place in the public forum. "I tried to tell them the truth." They're not gonna believe it. "But they prefer lies and illusions to truth." Yeah, most people.

Same here, it should be way more complicated. It's just irritating when you're taking a lower level class and you're provided with simple explanations of various concepts. Like, why can't they give us nearly incomprehensible jargon instead? I will agree with you though, it can be useful.

So did you make it into Yale?