AnarchistPhilosopher
I Introduce the basics on what constitutes “inductive arguments” and deductive arguments” as part 1 of my introduction to logic and argumentation series.
Key Points:
*A deductive argument is intended to provide absolute and conclusive support for its conclusion.
*A deductive argument that succeeds in providing conclusive support for its conclusion is said to be valid. A valid argument is such that if all its premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
*A deductively valid argument with true premises is said to be sound.
*An inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable support for its conclusion is said to be strong. A strong argument is such that if its premises are true, its conclusion is probably true.
*An inductively strong argument with true premises is said to be cogent.
Excellent video!
You should make more videos on this channel.
Thanks for uploading this video. I'm using it to help study for my philosophy final.
don't mess with socrates !! >:(
I am strongly against calling an argument "valid" just because the structure is correct, and then using "sound" as the qualifier for the conclusion of the argument. I believe this gives credit to arguments where credit is not due, and allows the argument to be deceiving.
I believe that the poor use of language in philosophy is very detrimental and counter intuitive.
Thanks! This helped a lot
Omg I'm still confuse … đ wahh
great video.,. i have a test on this on tuesday and you are a big help… God bless.. bc i was going to give up studying until i found this video
05:42 – Wrong. He's a koopa.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
The engineering major asks "how can I build this or build it better? The science major asks " how does this work"? The philosophy major asks "would you like fries with that sir"?
One example I was given is this…
Pr 1: All Irish people have red hair
Pr 2: Molly has red hair
Con: Therefore, Molly is Irish.
Yes, it's a valid argument, but it isn't really true since we know that not all Irish people have red hair. And we also know that just because someone has red hair doesn't mean they're Irish. (they could be Italian, or even Japanese).
That's an invalid argument. To see why, suppose I make the following argument of the same form
P1) All Dogs are Mammals
P2) Charles is a Mammal
C1) Therefore Charles is a Dog
Inferring such a conclusion is obviously absurd as there are many other mammals which aren't dogs (ex: cats). Plotting this on a Venn Diagram would reveal the conclusion isn't contained within the premises and thus isn't valid. Your example constitutes a syllogistic fallacy known as the fallacy of the undistributed middle
When you list what valid deductive arguments can have, I am confused by the last statement: True premises and true conclusion
Doesn't that make the argument valid and sound? Did you mean true premises and false conclusion?
Is it not so, that inductive arguments also work in reverse, compared to deductive ones? Meaning they go from single premises to general conclusion. For example: Socrates is mortal and a man. Therefore, general conclusion is that all men are probably mortal.
Does anyone know of a good video connecting inductive and deductive reasoning in philosophy to inductive and deductive reasoning in science?
Thanks in advance.
Inductive Arguments seem to not be absolute.Â
Please dry your mouth sir, I find your salivating mildly annoying. đ
thanks one of the bestÂ
Thank you so much! Logic just wasn't making sense until I saw your video!
What's this "invalid deductive argument" malarkey?Â
If it's a deductive argument, it's a valid argument.
If it's a valid argument, it's not an invalid argument.
Therefore if it's a deductive argument, it's not an invalid argument.
Seems like most of the people that have made videos on deduction equivocate on what 'deductive' means. Seems like they want it to mean 'using boolean logic' and 'conclusion guaranteed to follow from premesis if premesis are true' both at the same time. I'm voting for the latter.Â
So the second invalid deductive argument would be true if the second premise and the conclusion were switched? Also, what would make the 1st invalid deductive argument valid? Would the correct conclusion be "Politicians and used-car salesmen are liars"?
If you ever get confused, just write it down on a piece of paper in the form presented in the video. Whenever there is a same subject (for instance, a crow) on the same side (x—>y, the crow being x), the argument is invalid.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
thanks for sharing Liberty Through Reason
This is not a traditional distinction between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. But I like it well enough.
This was very clear and concise. Very understandable. Well done!
This is a shitty video it seems very robotic and i can hear your gum smacky sounds when you talk and its making my body cringe
it's absolutely hilarious as I understand this explanation in a foreign language instead of my mother tongue.