 So I'm starting a new little series for my channel call it a quick fill up Let's see how long that name lasts. I love my puns, but that was bad even for me. All right quick fill up. Okay, so Different topic for different fill ups, but usually try to be short and sweet. Now this time I want to talk about categoricals the universal affirmative and It's converse. All right, so the universal affirmative has the form of like all SRP so S is the subject P is the predicate. So all dogs are mammals That's the universal affirmative Categorical I have the videos on the other categoricals. I'll let you look at those if you like, but I'm not gonna repeat that now So all at all SRP. All right, it's converse a converse of a categoricals We need to switch the place of the subject of the predicate So the converse is all PRS All SRP and all PRS now The converse of a universal affirmative is not equivalent To the universal affirmative all dogs are mammals It's not equivalent. It's converse is not equivalent. All mammals are dogs If for no other reason that they're not equivalent The first is true all dogs are mammal, but the second all mammals are dogs the converse is false So we don't get to infer the converse of a universal affirmative from the universal affirmative We don't get to for if for the converse of universal affirmative from the universal affirmative Not only are they not equivalent. It's an invalid inference. It's an invalid. So You must say, okay, well, this is kind of obviously true. Why are you bothering bother me with this? Well, we make mistakes like this a lot, right? We we very quickly Do this sort of inference and it's kind of at the root of a lot of you know, stereotypes So here's the universal affirmative and it's not true, but we We often think it's true, right? Or at least the stereotype is true. All cheaters are men All cheaters and romantic relationships are men. It's actually not true It's not just men, but hey, let's you know, let's just grant that for a second That's at least the perception that all cheaters are men. Okay, fine. Let's just say that's true Right, but we don't get to infer it's converse all men are cheaters Right, that's a bad inference Because the converse of a universal affirmative is not equivalent nor is inferred by the universal affirmative. It's an invalid inference All right What? Yeah, this by the way, this also works for most right say So here's maybe this is true right first one is true. Maybe this one is true. Most cheaters are men That that might be true. I don't know. I haven't done the survey That's something you have to go out and search for right. So let's just grant that that's true. Most cheaters are men The converse it is not valid Right most men are cheaters Right the inferring the converse is not valid. Most men are cheaters I mean, maybe it's true that most cheaters are men. Okay, let's just take it for granted But you don't get to infer the converse most men are cheaters And you know, you know, I mean for another example of something like that here or here or something This is increasingly less the case, but it you know And that you know, it's a good thing right but you know, there was a time when it was just so obviously true that that most Philosophers are men. Okay Now it's a good thing right but the ratio of men to women in philosophy is becoming more and more even and that's a good thing But anyway, you know in most philosophers are men what you don't get to infer is converse most men are philosophers Right, that's really false Most I think this is true. Don't don't please don't bite my head off if it's false But I think this is true. Most soldiers are men. Okay, but but that doesn't mean you get to infer most men are soldiers So, you know when you have these kinds of categoricals you don't get to infer the converse from the categorical for the universal affirmative it works for the universal negative and the Particular affirmative but like I said, you have to watch with those videos But the reason why I bring it up is we often make oh, you let's you see it a lot to see it a lot This is a common logical fallacy floating around on there that you that you know people will infer All right, that's something like most cheaters are men's that well, therefore most men are cheaters I mean maybe Maybe most men are cheaters, but you're gonna have to go out and actually investigate that and verify that empirically You don't get to infer that from the logical form Okay, so quick the first quick fill up You have the universal affirmative. You don't get to infer its contents Don't get to a first comment. All right. That was my quick fill up. So what do you think? What do you think? What are some maybe some invalid inferences that you've heard right or that you know of? You know, I was kind of picking on men a little bit there, but you know, there's there's some about women, too We could start drifting over to other unsavory topics, right? What is your favorite or? Unfavorite least favorite invalid inference where we You know we infer kind of a prejudice kind of a stereotype based upon You know, maybe a true or at least the perception of a true categorical like that So, you know, I don't even know if it's true that all or most cheaters are men. Maybe it is But you know, usually we infer from that that for most men are cheaters They talk about liars gossips all kinds of unsavory sort of categories So put your answer down in the comments below. Let's take a look. Let's open up this conversation. See what we got and You know, maybe we'll work on something else See you next time