When considering the "Either/OR" situation, one must remember that testing had to be done to detemine the EITHER, and that an OR mechanism is known to be in place after the EITHER. If the next test does not find X (on a branch of the OR), then by the working of the mechanism X is on/in the other branch. What I am saying is that the mechanism must be in place or this logic can't be followed. Language usage can blur the fact that we are talking about mechanisms.
These basic forms are generally known as the 'Rules of Inference'. There are also forms known as tautologies; one that comes to mind is: p or not-p. This statement is considered true in [a]ll possible worlds.
Yes, I actually had a programming class in which the professor needed to explain a concept by writing out a basic truth table that showed examples of the various ways one might use an if-then tree. Computers often use, what are known as, Boolean (true false) values to execute blocks of code. It does get a little hairy when you need the computer to give a true value for a statement that evaluates to false but it's not as bad as logic class.
I took a basic statement logic class in college. I did pretty well, up until geometric proofs section. During this part, we used logically valid forms like Modus Pones, Modus Tollens, and etc to solve some basic proofs.
However, I found the mechanistic, algorithm used in a truth table a far easier method to deduce from then to try and figure out which form, or forms, could be used to solve a proof. But, from what I know, proofs serve as a terse way of doing things when logic formulas become ridiculously huge.
man is incapable of reasoning with these logics due to mistakes. Human logic needs cross-checks and intuition. Technical logics are not logic in the traditional sense. They do not enable a human to reason correctly. Our need for human-oriented rules of reasoning has been obscured by computers, for which it is easier to make rules. Developing rules for
human reasoning can be very difficult, but it is of vital importance to humans.
You don't have idea how much this is helping me! I typed "formal logic" in youtube out of frustration with my other intents to approach logic and I found this and now I'm watching it and taking notes and I can't be happier. Really, thank you very much from a psichologyst that decided to do her master on Philosophy of languge and has been having a very hard time starting. :)
I am done with your logic series, Brandon. Great work. I am pleased that you posted the series to youtube. They certainly helped me to learn the brute mechanics of doing logic trees, something I needed to learn for my graduate logic course.
I hope that you eventually go through the rest of the book. Great work.
Is tis from a beginner book? If so I feel reallllly stupid... Anyway is there a website on this stuff? I searched logic but I come up with a bunch of things that don't look like this.
I don't know about any websites for it. This book isn't really advanced... um, it was my first logic book ever, so I guess it worked for me as a beginner. Yeah, its kind of a beginner's book.
I got a book from the library that uses something called a star test for syllogistic logic invented by the author Harry J. Gensler. I'm not sure if you know this author. The star test is explained online. Thought you may be interested in it.
Dr. Gensler is a Jesuit who wrote the book right before he took a position teaching at the U of Scranton. It is a great book to visually understand the syllogistic system of Aristotle.
I like this book. My philosophy professor at the University of Toronto explained that he's seen people who were previously averse to mathematics (say humanities, social science students) become more confident to deal with it after they were able to handle the material in this textbook.
I had to repost this because there was a rougue video clip pasted on the start. Sorry about all the lost comments... Other than the blooper at the start, this video is identical.
I own this book, bought for a sentential logic course, it's my least favorite of all logic books. Glad to find some logic on youtube, however.
gpokriff2 1 month ago
When considering the "Either/OR" situation, one must remember that testing had to be done to detemine the EITHER, and that an OR mechanism is known to be in place after the EITHER. If the next test does not find X (on a branch of the OR), then by the working of the mechanism X is on/in the other branch. What I am saying is that the mechanism must be in place or this logic can't be followed. Language usage can blur the fact that we are talking about mechanisms.
rh001YT 8 months ago
Comment removed
rh001YT 8 months ago
Comment removed
rh001YT 8 months ago
It says in your profile that one of your interests is pedagogy. Well sir, you are one fine pedagogue.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
These basic forms are generally known as the 'Rules of Inference'. There are also forms known as tautologies; one that comes to mind is: p or not-p. This statement is considered true in [a]ll possible worlds.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
Yes, I actually had a programming class in which the professor needed to explain a concept by writing out a basic truth table that showed examples of the various ways one might use an if-then tree. Computers often use, what are known as, Boolean (true false) values to execute blocks of code. It does get a little hairy when you need the computer to give a true value for a statement that evaluates to false but it's not as bad as logic class.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
I took a basic statement logic class in college. I did pretty well, up until geometric proofs section. During this part, we used logically valid forms like Modus Pones, Modus Tollens, and etc to solve some basic proofs.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
However, I found the mechanistic, algorithm used in a truth table a far easier method to deduce from then to try and figure out which form, or forms, could be used to solve a proof. But, from what I know, proofs serve as a terse way of doing things when logic formulas become ridiculously huge.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
Logic test coming up next week. Hell yeah!
trisky1234 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haha , he is just reading the book.
he aint no smart nerd.
jonyzion 2 years ago
@jonyzion you're a fucking idiot.
McTaggStar 2 years ago 3
To quote Bruce Mills in his book Theoretical Introduction to Programming: Traditional logic is a study of rules that enable humans to reason cor-
rectly. Classically, the humanity of the reasoner was implicit. Humans were viewed as the only non-trivial reasoners. With computers, a techni-
cal constraint in the complexity of the rules in a logic system was lifted. However, technical logics are only of use on computers.
jaberwocky6669 3 years ago
Continued: In practice, a hu-
man is incapable of reasoning with these logics due to mistakes. Human logic needs cross-checks and intuition. Technical logics are not logic in the traditional sense. They do not enable a human to reason correctly. Our need for human-oriented rules of reasoning has been obscured by computers, for which it is easier to make rules. Developing rules for
human reasoning can be very difficult, but it is of vital importance to humans.
jaberwocky6669 3 years ago
All he's doing is reading the book.
Kyrrick 3 years ago
That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is .
foxtrot77777 3 years ago
This is fine but he is reading me a book. I can read myself...explain the essence of the text-don't just read it.
lazmedina 3 years ago
@lazmedina shut up. he goes on to in-depth explanations in later videos. its an introductory video don't be so knit picky you fuck.
McTaggStar 2 years ago 3
You don't have idea how much this is helping me! I typed "formal logic" in youtube out of frustration with my other intents to approach logic and I found this and now I'm watching it and taking notes and I can't be happier. Really, thank you very much from a psichologyst that decided to do her master on Philosophy of languge and has been having a very hard time starting. :)
hijadeldragon 4 years ago 5
@hijadeldragon Heh.. just started my psy-bachelor and already getting thrown at with this!
trisky1234 1 year ago
I am done with your logic series, Brandon. Great work. I am pleased that you posted the series to youtube. They certainly helped me to learn the brute mechanics of doing logic trees, something I needed to learn for my graduate logic course.
I hope that you eventually go through the rest of the book. Great work.
Titus (Logic TA at Ohio University)
titusjewell 4 years ago
Is tis from a beginner book? If so I feel reallllly stupid... Anyway is there a website on this stuff? I searched logic but I come up with a bunch of things that don't look like this.
justme3073 4 years ago
I don't know about any websites for it. This book isn't really advanced... um, it was my first logic book ever, so I guess it worked for me as a beginner. Yeah, its kind of a beginner's book.
MrCropper 4 years ago
Ohhhh, darn. 0.o Maybe I should listen to it some more times or something, I do like math. ^__^ Justme os me btw, I got banned because Fox hates me.
FoxHatesMe 4 years ago
welcome back!
MrCropper 4 years ago
I got a book from the library that uses something called a star test for syllogistic logic invented by the author Harry J. Gensler. I'm not sure if you know this author. The star test is explained online. Thought you may be interested in it.
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
Tell me more.
MrCropper 4 years ago
Dr. Gensler is a Jesuit who wrote the book right before he took a position teaching at the U of Scranton. It is a great book to visually understand the syllogistic system of Aristotle.
CathPresbyter 4 years ago
I like this book. My philosophy professor at the University of Toronto explained that he's seen people who were previously averse to mathematics (say humanities, social science students) become more confident to deal with it after they were able to handle the material in this textbook.
qtronman 4 years ago
Not that good!? Well, my PhD (a philosophy professor) says that it is a very good text.
I wonder what your gf's dad WOULD recommend to replace it?...
MrCropper 4 years ago
I had to repost this because there was a rougue video clip pasted on the start. Sorry about all the lost comments... Other than the blooper at the start, this video is identical.
MrCropper 4 years ago