How to Argue - Philosophical Reasoning: Crash Course Philosophy #2 

+Daniel Băț ba dum tis

+Daniel Băț What do you call a group of people that can't disagree on anything? Fascists.

+TheAzet89 Pretty sure they did though

+Jacques Hanekom No, didn't you watch the video?

+Jacques Hanekom mine was a joke about a joke about the joke. jk

Arguments aren't about winning.

I think in a sense arguments do have a "win" state, where all parties are convinced in the truth. You can concede and still "win" if your concession means you've forfeited a falsity. So KoreTen's statement remains applicable: A smart person is generally more open to new information and more likely to seek the truth, and is also more likely to possess the truth in their argument, making the win state more easily accessible.

Albert Shaw I'm smart and you will not convince me of the contrary! That was a pretty smart comment, wasn't it?

recess?

It's actually very easy, it's called the Socratic method

Isla Drummond ah yes, the old feelsies over realsies argument

Doesn't need to be widely accepted to truly believe that what ur doing or thinking is right

Is it also the philosopher's saying that "if you think you're right, then you're wrong"?

Very astute observation

Lol Lol yeah that would be another fallacy... something like just because 5 million people believe it to be true it does not have to be true

Good to know

@@seferraziel9534 Thank god for moral progression 9

@@seferraziel9534 Was he? Or did he wrote in a more acceptable style? You just can say, that you think he was a sexist.

Political animal is so much better. 😮

Here are a couple nice quotes from Aristotle .•••• "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 ••••••••••

Iyyappan Sivaraman it's a joke don't take it too seriously

Hahaaa lol

Ok Anti-intellectual whose watching Crash Course for some unknown reason.

I would just say thank you because I’m watching Crash Course

Sassy Wells just call them a racist, or laugh at them...Leftists are masters at this. If either of those arguments wont work, calling someone a fascist is also very effective at proving you are correct and your foe is false.

fallacy: I forgot its name but this is the fallacy about using homophones. "more holes" in p2 and "more holes" in p3 do not mean the same thing.

Fallacy of Equivocation is the one you're looking for.

Observation 1) It is necessary for there to be more holes than cheese ex in "More holes = less cheese?" to equal "More cheese = less cheese", but in "More cheese = more holes" is there the same amount of holes and cheese? "only guidance is the word "more" for "More cheese = more holes". Both descriptions include the word more, if 1 included more, there would be more, but if both included more, they would be equal...? Question 1??) Are the holes the same sizes and take up the same space as the cheese or less?

On the basis that all cheese contains the same amount of holes, surely more cheese = more holes? Is that a valid conclusion that can be drawn out from the stated premises?

I can't believe people took this seriously.

Also, great 'entertainer' music in the thought bubble.

+Cryp Tic yes!

+Cryp Tic Kudos to Michael Aranda!

Dude even soothing things arent as soothing as that

I want it on repeat

+Intu Well, I can't promise we're going to get through philosophical reasoning without a little Sherlock Holmes. Apologies in advance. -Nicole

+CrashCourse fair enough, I hope his little thought bubble-cartoon is cool

+Intu Sherlock uses abduction though.

+Caffa Jake You're quite right

Allofusien Abduction it is.

In Serbia they teach us logic. It's an awesome subject.

Here, politicians shout at the microphone. They appeal to emotions instead of logic. Many people vote based on their emotional connection with the party as if they are football fans cheering for their team.

Fearofthemonster just bcs here in serbia logic is taught in school does not mean its applied one quick look at our leaders is more than enough to confirm that

I took it as a dual enrolled class at a university when I was a high school junior. Awesome awesome class

Most schools don't teach students logic because those who control schools wants students to be a robot in which, they can program something whatever they input and told over and over again.

Alex Bermann it's very odd that someone would advocated Plato and Aristotle, Plato being anti reason and Aristotle the father of reason

How was Plato anti reason?

Alex Bermann Platonism is the foundation of america if I'm correct.

Plato was a few thousand years too old for that

Alex Bermann I don't argue to prove something I argue to learn something

+Xidnaf I really enjoy your videos, by the way. Looking forward to see what comes next. (no rush)

+Xidnaf yea, you're not alone in that...

+Xidnaf The barber is a proxy for talking about the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. Does that set contain itself? If it doesn't, then it's a set that doesn't contain itself... so it does contain itself. If it does, then it's a set that contains itself... so it doesn't contain itself. Russell used it to illustrate the problems with naive set theory, and justify the need for a more rigorously axiomatic set theory.

+Xidnaf There is a law in logic called the law of identity. I think the paradox illustrates this, but the paradox seem like a false one. The paradox only exists as a result of the silly dictates imposed on the barber by the rulers of beard land.

+Xidnaf I'm pretty sure it's the opposite, a group (set, formally) must not be a member of itself. If it is, paradoxes may happen.

+

Pen pineapple apple pen

You, are, not, Bob, Dylan!

It really works ...

Pen Pineapple Apple Pen.

+Rizerr96 It's also true that pretty much no one makes good arguments, mostly I see insults :P

+LittleLion93 because kids come here.

While I agree that most on the internet can't (won't) be persuaded, I think there is still value in at least trying to have good conversations and arguments.

Also, in salad XD

+LittleLion93 NO IT'S NOT. FUCK YOU. /s

Jim Sluder •••• Don't worry , neither generation was taught the science of Logic in school , both nice and stupid . The science of logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

LEARN FRENCH WITH VINCENT •••• Hey, maybe he'll teach you the first law of the science of Logic next time ? But don't bet on it .

+LazerLord10 Same here actually; LTT ftw.

You should

+LazerLord10 the branding is strong with square space.

+EZ E Nope. Squarespace is legit awesome. I helped my dad get his small business website setup a couple years back. It was great. The business died, but the website looked fantastic, and even he could maintain it.

+gnhtd1 Yes! Please Thoughtcafé, make this happen!

+gnhtd1 Maybe it's because I have a lame sense of humor and a low standard of entertainment... But I want to see that as a visual gag too.

+Anase Skyrider I second everything you just said.

Piotr Woźniak No, not "Philosophers". "Philosoraptor". As in, the meme with the velociraptor with captions that ask philosophical-sounding questions. The joke is because of John's reptilian tail in the thoughtcafe graphics earlier in the episode.

+gnhtd1 No, because John Green is a member of the scientific community, all members of the scientific hate most members of philosophy and most of philosophy. therefore John Green hates most members of philosophy and most of philosophy.

Faithfully Restored It depends on how that person learns.

Not all white people are john or hank. Your logic is flawed.

Jaden :3 validity is not the truth

there is a lot of white people you can't say they all hg or jg

Nope.

Bandit ByKKo but his argument isn’t valid, cause: the middle term ( white people) is not distributed in the premises. Therefore you can not have a valid argument with the fallacy of undistributed middle term

+Top Dog Unsound argument and religious bait.

+Top Dog That is a valid argument based on those facts. Well done.

DJR Awww, stop ruining jokes....

+Top Dog Well my gardener is 100% Jesus

Only logical

+WrathOfMega Don't bother. These people are strangely adverse to anything of this nature.

+WrathOfMega I was gonna comment stating how he may not have meant it that way, but I'm glad someone actually did their research on this. Also, it was a different time anyway.

Plato.. mgtow-ing since 424 BC Did he really? Interesting. I was wondering why hank would say something like that, knowing that this is the internet. Have a feeling he did it on purpose. If so, kuddos. And that says an egalitarian.

+WrathOfMega Thank you, Hank made this pretty clear, dont see how people messed it up.

Mr Barwick He did? I don't see how, care to enlighten me?

Lmao! 😂❤

Lol😄

+flat moe  Your first premise should be: Watching a video about philosophy makes the watcher a Philosopher. Your second premise should be: you watched a video about philosophy Thus your conclusion can be that you are now a philosopher Then it'd be a valid argument.

+lcmiracle But not necessarily a sound one! Watching a video about philosophy can make the watcher a philosopher. You watched a video about philosophy. You can be a philosopher.

lcmiracle lol im irrational , so your argument about my argument being fault isn't right to me either -Trump (i guess that's what he tells himself every morning in the mirror )

+Tyler Graham Look at that. The series is already paying off.

+flat moe You have always been a philosopher. You are the chosen one.

Kun Yu Tsai ••••• He left out some pretty important ingredients from the recipe . He never explains that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence. He never mentioned that the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

I don't think it works that way. You're using a singular noun.

Henree Garcia ylecsactly

Random Mapper/Scratcher/Robloxian I think that's called the substitution property

Cookie Monster girl :)

Random Mapper/Scratcher/Robloxian I am a human, Dr Richard Feynman is a human, therefore I am Richard Feynman? I don't think so.....

hippogriffgrrl10 •••• Hey, maybe Hank will actually teach you the first law of the science of Logic in the next video. But I doubt it .

@@williamspringer9447 I'm really glad you took time out of your day to reply to a 3-year-old comment. Well done.

+Alpaca Man Tha't a good thing, it means that we are albe to think! Well... kinda of....

+LittleLion93 its all about rationally thinking... just thinking is so last year

+Alpaca Man If one cannot handle conflict and controversy, one should not be on the Internet.

+Alpaca Man What controversy? I didn't see anything that could offend anyone.

+Sejref Raincisa I think he refers to the barber, which I and many others here think that because the rules are contradictory, they cannot be followed either way. Edit: I'm wrong, it was about Hank saying Plato was sexist because he said that man is a rational animal.

Angela Guasti•••• I wonder when he's going to tell us that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence?

Matthew Flynn ••• And they still manage to suppress the most important element of logical reasoning . Brilliant .

+AktionJackson i just dont like meta physics. give me some scientific reasoning

+Something Seems Off Do you know what metaphysics exactly is? It's not astrology, it's logical reasoning about the most general foundations about "everything", see: plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ If you like reasoning it's one of the most technical and hard fields of philosophy.

+AktionJackson More of an epistemology person myself, I feel like epistemology is the most "out there" branch of philosophy

Mr McBeardy •••• The science of logic is a mystery to the masses . How can that be in a free society ? Why did this guy not explain the first law of logical reasoning ?

@@williamspringer9447 if you are referring to Aristotle's first law of "Identity", I can see how that could be a good point to make in today's world where many people will believe a conspiracy before doing any research to find the truth. Sure, i can see your point, and i agree to a point, it may have been a point worth touching on, even if briefly. (Perhaps he did, as it was 11 months ago that i watched this, so i can't say i recall whether or not this was touched on, even if briefly). With the point of the "law of truth" in mind, I present these two following observations. 1, Just because one may not broach the subject of "identitifying the difference between truth or non-truth", it doesnt mean all the other information is moot or discounted, because in truth, all the other information is still apt and applicable to the teachings of logical reasoning. And 2, that is a question you should be asking the content creator. As I am not them, i cannot claim to know their throughts or reasons in order to answer your query (although i am certain it was rhetorical). Perhaps they thought that in a world where people vote, drive mutli-tonne weapons around, raise children, and work jobs to pay bills, that a concept like discerning "what is truth" should be a rather self-explanatory process to even the more cerebrally challenged, and therefore determined the time was better spent on highlighting other principles that may be less conspicuous to those just discovering deductive reasoning? But I digress, this is but a reasoned speculation, as i cannot claim to know the authors mind. 🤔🤷‍♂️😊

@@williamspringer9447 but indeed, i do sympathize with your statement/observation... it can 'seem' like logic is often missing in the many in this day and age. Be careful with blanket statements though, as to throw the rest of humanity in with the illogical folk, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To begin a process of automatically discounting the entire population of their potential and ability, only serves longterm to negatively impact on your own personal opinion and view of the world... Which, in turn, would be an illogical way to think yourself, as blanket statements cannot accurately portray the truth of humanity. For your point to be proven true (about the masses not having logic), we would have to question and explore the answers of every individual on earth, and then count the difference between those of logical vs illogical thought processes. So even your original statement wouldnt pass Aristotles first law of Truth, rendering your statement to the level of congecture and anecdote. However, with this in mind, I would agree to an extent, that in todays world, it can SEEM that when humans are in larger groups, they tend to follow hive-mind mentality, and at such point logic and reasoning can seemingly be rather absent or hard to find. But many of those people on their own, may think more logically. Hive mind mentality is a real problem with humans, and can potentially cause more problems than it ever solves... (depending on who the hive is subconsciously following). A solution to this, would be to teach children about logic and reasoning (and conscious thought in general) at an early age in school. Of course, one major symptom of todays world is a higher prevalence of narcissism, and kids being raised in narcissitic environments will rarely be shown reasoning by their narsiccistic family members... which may or may not help reinforce whatever the kids learn about reason, as that itself will come down to the individual kids innate intelligence and who they look too for guidance and role-modelling.

@@williamspringer9447 also, if you're into healthy reasoning and logic,,you would love some of Jordan Petersons talks ;) arguably one of the best psychologists of todays world. But you may have already gotten there :) Be well and happy. Namaste 😊

Mr McBeardy ••••• What an excellent response ! Thank you. Now, for the two points I wish to make : (1) There is overwhelming evidence that the science of Logic is not taught in our State controlled public schools. The near universal ignorance of the subject by U.S. high school graduates makes this perfectly obvious. Historian John Gatto argues in his book "The Underground History of American Education" that the suppression of the teaching of the science of Logic in our schools has been going on for over a century . • ••• (2) I think it is easy defend the proposition that the first law of logic is that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence . This becomes apparent when you realize that the human mind does not readily accept invalid arguments as properly reasoned , but they continuously accept false or questionable premises as true . •••• Here s little information about Logic that I have found useful . ••••• "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 ••••••••••

+Max Fux Now I can't unsee it

Mk

JimmyJam ••• It would have been better if he had explained that logical arguments must be properly supported by solid evidence. And better still if he explained why the science of Logic hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto

I'm pretty sure it was a joke m8

+Fred Skiddles Are you sure? These guys are pretty PC.

+Jonathan Wilkinson They are PC but they like to mock themselves about that, so... go figure.

+Jonathan Wilkinson Yes, it leaves out women. It's not a huge issue, but it's insulting to at least some women.

+Jonathan Wilkinson Let's check his privilege!

You must have forgot the most effective countermeasure to ok boomer: " This meme is already nothing but a memory" - Patrick Harlan

ok boomer

Jon •••• I'd be more impressed if this guy explained the first law of the science of Logic to his audience.

+Simon Als Nielsen It is now, but at that time it was used to refer to male humans. As in, that quote was likely meant to exclude anyone who wasn't a guy.

on the contrary, I've always thought that 'man' being considered a synonym for 'human' is emblematic of the depths of patriarchy.

Adam Khan Holy crap, if that is enough to keep someone down, then it is probably better to shield them from the real world, man is literally just the last part of the word human.

this is only in english,that's why he specified it,it doesn't have the same meaning as in greek,where men=members of the male gender

Silvia Elena Oh, didn't think of that aspect, good point.

kaerblover ••• This guy didn't even teach you the first law of the science of Logic.

Most of the Saiyans in the anime get their tails removed, but on some occasions, they grow back

Kevin He had one.

You got this straight from a google search lol

Premise one requires an existential quantifier. Some saiyans have tails. Or, you could state that All saiyans are born with tails, Goku is a saiyan, thefore goku was born with a tail.

Transitive property, we all learn it one way or another.

clever name •••• Bruce Banner. You should learn the first law of the science of logic. I think that would help .

William Woodward i don’t agree with everything he says but i honestly think he’s one of the few people who are capable of formulating a logical argument and delivering it well, without emotional reactivity (with the exception of that BBC interview). same as jordan peterson... but hey! it’s cool to have different views

@@LaLaBlahBlahh he uses flawed reasoning all the time and his fast speech doesnt help others either. same as jordan peterson.I used to like him a lot until that debate with zizek.He was shown he doesnt know much outside his main field(psychology)

reallymagnolia To argue properly is to use the art of rhetoric to persuade your audience . This is only done logically if all of the reliable evidence is on your side and your audience will not positively respond to the judicial use of logical fallacies .