An Overview of Logic

This video is the second in a series that introduces the academic discipline of Logic. We define Formal and Informal Logic as well as give a very brief history of Logic in Western Philosophy.

[DimitriDesormeau]

If I could heart this video, I would. You not only explained this topic better then the sum total of all my professors, but you did so in an extremely intriguing manner. You are a blessing for philosophy. Please do not stop teaching

[rezamahan]

I tried hard to imagine how you could’ve explained these concepts clearer, no success! Thank you

[Zen-lzhc]

Thank You for the overview.
That was exactly what I was looking for.
Many Thanks!

[RickSanchez-oduf]

I can tell how smart you are by the way you use the most precise language available to express your ideas.

[loitfm]

This might be the best example of how to produce a comprehensive overview. Thanks for sharing.

[punkpendulums]

03:34 formal, morphology 04:08 informal, induction, quality/quantity evidence 08:16 never going to achieve certainty, degree of probability 09:15 deduction 11:35 propositional logic 15:24 history of logic

[JacquelineWolf-vizu]

Thank you. I am so happy that you made these lectures available.

[hombrepobre]

you are a very good and talented teacher, your student must be amongst the best in the world because they have you.

[belengaz]

The logic notably show itself in debates, especially in a philosophical or mathematical debate.

That's why this topic is so cricual thanks for video.

[wackmane]

Can learning logic help with the improvement of decision making? & if so what are the best books or videos to watch. I can’t afford college.

[dm_grant]

Love this video! Series sounds very promising!

[realrogers]

This is so interesting☑️... Please keep it up mate... I support your channel

[wisdomseeker]

Silly question...but how would you define 'inference' or warrant as in Toulmin's model.

[James-lljb]

(2:22ff.) The idea that one cannot know why arguments fail without first knowing what arguments are is wrongheaded, though it does seem inescapable 'logically'. If someone tells me they can argue with success that the sight of wet pavement immediately outside my window means it must have recently rained, I can respond by refuting the claim or agreeing with it without consideration of the meaning of argumentation. I would discern the cause of the wet pavement, notwithstanding any search for the validity of an argument regarding same, and would not even have to or need to know if anything resembling what we would normally call an "argument" is actually going on in this, my ascertainment of the actual cause. Thus I would not need to know what an argument is, to know if an argument e.g. "the wet pavement was not caused by rain but by a garden hose" is true or not: I know the 'argument' is a success or not BEFORE I even know the situation as an argument, or therefore what even an 'argument' is...

[CharlieHill_]

Haha no way, I’m your exact 10, 000th subscriber!! Congrats :)

I double checked by unsubscribing and it went back down to 9.99k and I screen recorded, that’s cool.

[e.mz]

Why do people always forget Busquets smh 😒

[syedaleemuddin]

I am a new pigeon in this subject. What I can tell you is that logic and philosophy and rational arguments can be everything but God.
Am I right??

[anunturipubli]

Logic is god is the law of the infinite universe