@Heissenburger Very true! But in very different ways. The traditional notion of "logical strength" trades on the notion that belief or logical support can come in degrees, but retains bivalence (a proposition can only take on one of two truth values, "true" and "false"). Fuzzy logics trade on the notion that membership in a set can come in degrees, and correspondingly that truth values can come in degrees as well.
Completely arbitrary!! Brings nobody closer to knowing, proving, or learning anything. Personal invocations of 'strong' and 'weak' do nothing to ameliorate the problem and arguing that such things 'strong' and 'weak' even exist is even a bigger hurdle to jump than the problems which their invocations attempt to solve. Get out of here.
what if the premises of the argument are strong but only like....because someone THINKs that they are strong? for example...
someone who thinks someone is honest because they have observed them as being a consistent person. their premise is, 'they are cosistent' all consistent people are honest, therefore, this consistent person is honest.
would that be a good premise? i don't know, i think an argument like that is hazy. what do you think?
I think this is misleading. Most A are B, x is in A, therefor x is B is invalid, but not because of probability. It is invalid because the valid phrase would be Most A are B, x is in A, therefore X is likely B.
There is a difference between strong valid and strong invalid arguments. Strength describes the probabilistic dimension (certain being best) and valid described the soundness of the deduction.
@socrates856 If we modify the conclusion as you suggest, then it's no longer an invalid argument (it's no longer a "risky" inference). The concept of a strong argument is meant to capture a risky inference (the conclusion doesn't follow with necessity) but that nevertheless it would be reasonable to accept. But the question of where to assign the probability (to the conclusion or to the inference as a whole) is an interesting one.
@socrates856 Strictly speaking, you can't have an argument that is both valid and strong, since strong arguments are by definition invalid. The terms 'valid' and 'invalid', and 'strong' and 'weak', are all used to describe the logical properties of an inference, they imply nothing about the actual truth or falsity of the premises themselves. In standard terminology, a valid argument with all true premise is called 'sound'; a strong argument with all true premises is called 'cogent'.
He taught a class like this at Cornell, to bad he is not with us to see other taking on the mantel of teaching critical thinking and logic. We need more this then you can know. It should be a middle and high school requirement to take this class. Why they teach it in college is anyone guess.
@gjsterp Validity is a feature of deductive reasoning you commonly find in math, formal logic, computer programming, etc. But most reasoning about the world, say, doesn't have this feature. "Invalid argument" doesn't imply "bad argument". Scientific reasoning, detective work, medical diagnosis, etc. is at best strong, rather than valid, but we still think such arguments can count as offering "good reasons" to accept their conclusions.
I like how u explain ur thoughts and judgements. If u have any resources to help improve my english especially for essay writing, it would be very appreciated.
I've got a tutorial course on how to organize an argumentative essay (see my channel), and a lot of that material is relevant to essay writing in general, but I don't have anything on english composition, grammar, etc. Sorry. Thanks for the nice comment.
FUCK! YOU'RE TOO FUCKING INTELLIGENT, YOU FUCKING SMART FUCK!
Traveler246 1 month ago
Threshold made me think a little. The threshold is not fixed with logic but rather our conventional choice that we make.
It sounds to me that it means that 20% can be enough for strong argument when we are talking something that matters to life.
Shit...Now I started to think about... I should quit smoking... :/
steverock85 1 month ago
Comment removed
idricool 2 months ago
Fuzzy logic provides another calculus to handle different degrees of certainty.
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org(slash)wiki(slash)Fuzzy_logic
Heissenburger 2 months ago
@Heissenburger Very true! But in very different ways. The traditional notion of "logical strength" trades on the notion that belief or logical support can come in degrees, but retains bivalence (a proposition can only take on one of two truth values, "true" and "false"). Fuzzy logics trade on the notion that membership in a set can come in degrees, and correspondingly that truth values can come in degrees as well.
PhilosophyFreak 2 months ago
A true PhilosophyFreak, ;D thanks for the help! recpect!
mourajini 2 months ago in playlist More videos from PhilosophyFreak
thanks, this helped me get an 83% on my civics essay / slideshow
pinappleman1 5 months ago
Your videos are great for people studying for debate!
AngryRantingNerd 6 months ago
You could say that argument B is statistically strong and therefore the conclusion has a relatively high probability of being true.
vidbid1 6 months ago
Completely arbitrary!! Brings nobody closer to knowing, proving, or learning anything. Personal invocations of 'strong' and 'weak' do nothing to ameliorate the problem and arguing that such things 'strong' and 'weak' even exist is even a bigger hurdle to jump than the problems which their invocations attempt to solve. Get out of here.
barifkin31 10 months ago
the video was very helpful! thank you!
aurorah1991 11 months ago
what if the premises of the argument are strong but only like....because someone THINKs that they are strong? for example...
someone who thinks someone is honest because they have observed them as being a consistent person. their premise is, 'they are cosistent' all consistent people are honest, therefore, this consistent person is honest.
would that be a good premise? i don't know, i think an argument like that is hazy. what do you think?
LastRqss 1 year ago
Comment removed
LastRqss 1 year ago
@LastRqss
i meant to say that the argument then would be: this person is consistent,therefore i (have good reason to )believe this person is honest.
LastRqss 1 year ago
I think this is misleading. Most A are B, x is in A, therefor x is B is invalid, but not because of probability. It is invalid because the valid phrase would be Most A are B, x is in A, therefore X is likely B.
There is a difference between strong valid and strong invalid arguments. Strength describes the probabilistic dimension (certain being best) and valid described the soundness of the deduction.
socrates856 1 year ago 2
@socrates856 If we modify the conclusion as you suggest, then it's no longer an invalid argument (it's no longer a "risky" inference). The concept of a strong argument is meant to capture a risky inference (the conclusion doesn't follow with necessity) but that nevertheless it would be reasonable to accept. But the question of where to assign the probability (to the conclusion or to the inference as a whole) is an interesting one.
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago
@socrates856 Strictly speaking, you can't have an argument that is both valid and strong, since strong arguments are by definition invalid. The terms 'valid' and 'invalid', and 'strong' and 'weak', are all used to describe the logical properties of an inference, they imply nothing about the actual truth or falsity of the premises themselves. In standard terminology, a valid argument with all true premise is called 'sound'; a strong argument with all true premises is called 'cogent'.
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago
@socrates856 I really appreciate you taking the time to comment! Thanks!
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago 4
carl sagan would be happy with these videos
thesparitan 1 year ago 6
@thesparitan i consider that a great compliment indeed, thank you!
PhilosophyFreak 1 year ago 5
@PhilosophyFreak : )
He taught a class like this at Cornell, to bad he is not with us to see other taking on the mantel of teaching critical thinking and logic. We need more this then you can know. It should be a middle and high school requirement to take this class. Why they teach it in college is anyone guess.
thesparitan 1 year ago
If an argument is invalid logically, as these two are, how can one ever be considered "strong"?
gjsterp 2 years ago
@gjsterp Validity is a feature of deductive reasoning you commonly find in math, formal logic, computer programming, etc. But most reasoning about the world, say, doesn't have this feature. "Invalid argument" doesn't imply "bad argument". Scientific reasoning, detective work, medical diagnosis, etc. is at best strong, rather than valid, but we still think such arguments can count as offering "good reasons" to accept their conclusions.
PhilosophyFreak 2 years ago
I like how u explain ur thoughts and judgements. If u have any resources to help improve my english especially for essay writing, it would be very appreciated.
spirit0221 2 years ago
I've got a tutorial course on how to organize an argumentative essay (see my channel), and a lot of that material is relevant to essay writing in general, but I don't have anything on english composition, grammar, etc. Sorry. Thanks for the nice comment.
PhilosophyFreak 2 years ago