@Illuminatus Messiah "demon"strate, see what I did there 🤪, that a hell or god or jesus exists. Provide evidence... Anything! I want to believe!! 😂😂. You've got to be one of the worst fake christian trolls I've ever read btw. 😂
@Illuminatus Messiah China's government controlled media has also been known to put its own 'spin' on news stories and cover up things that will make the government look bad. Censorship is not a good thing. The problem with rampant social media in the U.S. is not that it exists, but that people are not trained to recognize the differences between good, reliable, and verifiable sources and those that are not.
LOL - X says "support me & i will reward you. If you do not, I will torture & brutalize you" If X is Putin, Saddam - then "What a sick, evil person" If X is God - then "Praise the Lord!" Critical thinking indeed
Human communication seems solely an exercise in persuasion based significantly on how we identify. Some people like to feel right, some people like to be the ones who decide, some people are conditioned to be contrarian, some people need others to see them in a certain light, others need to be liked, others want to be silly or add comic relief if they're uncomfortable, others want to connect and all of these motives mostly de-prioritize an accurate explanation of what occurs for emphasis on the way each conversationalist feels about another person or other people in their conversation.
@Brian Jefferson, well said! Some people only believe what is news said, but the news can be biased, some people only trust in the name of scientists, but the scientists can be paid for commercial reason, some people believe tribes/races/blood in their vain and they cannot see any defects of their own, they follow their beliefs/passions/loved blindly...
Largely, personal bias, which is not so much a factor in Critical Thinking. Ideally, learning the fundamentals of Critical Thinking allows us to see past those intrinsic personal biases. Based on my observations, I've come to the conclusion that some people are simply not wired for Critical Thinking. For them, it is not something that can be taught or learned. However, this conclusion is my own personal bias.
In the US student loans are super expensive and they can’t be erased even if you file bankruptcy so a lot of people who want to learn go to UA-cam and online to learn.
@@wsc1955 yeah it blow my mind how it can be different once i apply critical thinking to my daily life, it seems like i see things in so many more aspects of it. Truly appriciate these kinds of content
I am learning Critical Thinking in Business subject, which is included in my MBA journey. This video is really helpful for me. I can learn about critical thinking and argument. My favorite part of this video is about the two facts of argument, deductive and ampliative. I am clear about those two facts now. Thank you so much Geoff Pynn.
If the girl confidently lists her dislike of Monty as a reason that he won't be appearing, is it inductive reasoning to believe that she is in fact in charge of who is invited?
Sure, given that: 1) The location of the party is at her home 2) She typically organizes parties amongst your social circle 3) Isn't known for being irrational 4) (Many other possible indicators)
I've gone to several parties I wasn't invited to and often times I was accepted. I've also been denied access to certain clubs but later found a way in.
I think this is a nice idea -- probably an inference to the best explanation. ("Why would she be giving *this* as a reason Monty won't be there? Probably because she is in charge of the invitations...")
i like how such simple daily human interactions we do everyday are being more closely evaluated and understood. why we do the things we do, or why we think the way we do. its not necessarily about whats right and wrong , but also looking at the interaction from an outside perspective
I sincerely want to congratulate this skilled lecturer. I really like the straight and short manner his presents Critical Thinking. It's very close to The New Rational Mind of Bachelard. So many people around us, and among them numerous high rank managers, suffer of egocentric and sociocentric pathology. They lean more on assumptions, prejudices and feelings than facts.
1. Critical thinking is having a good reason to believe in something. 2. The argument is that the premises have good reasons to believe in conclusion. 3. Valid argument is if premises is true, then conclusion is true. 4. A deductive argument is--- a conclusion must be true. 5. The ampliative argument is-- conclusion probably true.
Thank you - Your resulting diagram looks like the inside of my head. It's a comfort to know that there are other people who think visually as messy as I do and can still make sense at the end of it all. I appreciate the way you presented.
this broadens the word "argument" to not just be defined as a debate on who is correct over a situation. but looking at the word argument more SIMPLY and raw. because we are people with brains and have the ability to think and elaborate whenever a statement is made, whether it be by us or others. we always think of reasons we might be skeptical or what proof or evidence gives us the reason to believe the argument aka statement is true.
Ampliative arguments are used when there is no way for you to gather enough information for a deductive argument. This was just the video I was looking for. Thank you
This is definitely useful for a college/university degree, but it’s also extremely useful for the rest of your life, so make sure you get a good understanding of it.
@3:00 its an assumption rhT "rational beliefs and/or having true beliefs is best." That false belief leads to entirely cictional fields such as economic theory. Most people prefer beliefs and arguments that give them a dopamine release, sadly these are often not true and often not entirely rationalised
Sometimes I wonder how great it would be for me to be able to make people understand the benefits of critical thinking. Your video does exactly that, thanks!
I enjoyed this. It was very clear and makes me want to continue reading further lectures. However, I am deaf and rely on subtitles and was so distracted by the constant drawing hand that I had difficult processing the arguments.
And then you have morons who *assume* someone is making a deductive argument even when it is implicitley or explicitly stated that they are making an ampliative argument. For example, look at some of the criticisms on William Lane Craig. A lot of them rely on the notion that he's making deductive arguments, even though he's clearly not. Internet atheists make some of the worst arguments and criticisms I've ever seen...
But isn't callingv someone a moron in the middle of a discussion about appropriate argument structure and critical thinking a bit inappropriate? Not only that, but it's self-defeating. Since you have set yourself up in opposition to atheists, I would assume that you are pro-theism in some way, and therefore would be more likely to want to convert the atheist or at least defeat their arguments. Putting "moron" on at the top of a comment when you have such a goal is extremely self-defeating and probably leads to an increase of the number of atheists discounting your arguments completely.
I'd say most people use ampliative arguments in lack of deductive ones. You rarely need to make arguments for things that are obvious, and you rarely hold that much more knowledge than people you surround yourself with! :D
4:56 depends on the context of the premises of the given example in the video. Premise 1: She can't stand Monty. Premise 2: She wanted to have a good time without the presence of Monty. Conclusion: Monty won't be at the party. -this could be a true statement and a valid conclusion. Since we could assume; Two possibilities: 1) She is the organizer of the party, and she has full authority over it. 2)Monty doesn't want to come either. Of course these are assumptions. However, as long as it is a possible reason, we should take into account all the possibilities only then we decide if the premises follow/satisfy the conclusion.
It's a tough go when the first thing in the video gives an incorrect definition. Or more accurately, an incomplete definition. Critical thinking includes making sure you have good reasons for your beliefs, but that's not all critical thinking is. Fundamentally, it's using reason, rationality and an unbiased apporach to analyze information, typically to make decisions with.
@@RichardChappell1 Belief relies on a 'leap of faith' which to me is the polar opposite to why we use critical thinking. Know for sure, not because you want to believe something.
Yes I agree Richard Chappell ! I’m 38 and I think I was in the last generation that avoided being educated in the way this professor obviously is/was . The problem is how widespread this incompleteness of thought is now . I’m so glad I can hear incomplete claims around me and go “wait a minute….” What you pointed out in your comment I think is the key to understanding how our younger generations of Academics and though-leaders were brainwashed or brain-strangled. I could be wrong and making a lot of assumptions but that’s why we talk to each other to try and find out!
@@GameOver-hu1vi Surely belief is a technical word in debate. It means what you understand to be true. You seem to be equating it with RELIGIOUS belief, which is a tiny sub-set of the correct meaning of the word.
This introduction to critical thinking is top-notch! The clarity and depth in the explanations really help sharpen reasoning skills. A must-watch for anyone wanting to improve their analytical thinking! 😍
This is all fantastic. I myself have been practicing CT skills for years in a hundred more years i may get better at it. This video is great for someone with background. But some with low education or elderly. Far too many jumping around. THE POINT is i am looking for the best SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING of this CT skills for those “lazy” persons that accept everything they hear and view ???
When he says, "Good arguments support their conclusions," he doesn't mean that the entire argument (including the conclusion) supports the conclusion, he means that the argument is such that it gives you good reasons to believe the conclusion. In other words, good arguments are arguments that support their conclusions because good arguments give you good reasons to believe their conclusions.
Thank you so much!!! I have been struggling with my critical thinking course. I think i have it and then I don't! This series is finally getting it to sink in!
At either end of the spectrum there is absolute certainty that something is true and absolute certainty that something is false. When there is any uncertainty in between those absolutes, then there can only be an evaluation of probability. Therefore, it is more honest to say that something is likely or unlikely, whereas "belief" is an irrational and incoherent conviction about an uncertainty, usually based on personal preference rather than an objective assessment of facts.
I understand that categorizing ideas, concepts, such as the nature of arguments, is part of the human existence as a rational being. But I would like to state that there is nothing guaranteed, no idea is really truthfully, absolute . As mentioned in the video,critical thinking is about making truthful judgments , even though there is nothing absolutely truthfully in our existence. At times, I think to myself and realize that life is a gamble, and we are always trying to deceive ourselves of the contrary.
Very interesting, I look forward to watching the rest of the series. I've just had a baby and have become a full-time dad so I need things like this that'll keep me entertained as well as educated.
Soon as it became an option, my mind instantly went to "who's initiated the party" because naturally if the person who doesn't like Monty is hosting the party, why would he be invited?
Like most discrimination's I find in philosophy the difference between an "deductive" or "ampliative" argument as given here, is illusory. The point is, in the real world you cannot say with 100% accuracy that Monty is in Beijing, or that he cannot get back from there in a afternoon; so both arguments are in fact ampliative. With mathematical formulae, there is always a chance that you just got your sums wrong, so the ampliative appliqué applies even here.
this isn't critical thinking, this is making logic of sense...critical thinking is skepticism in it's truest form. critical thinking is not reaching conclusions
thank you for this lesson, I never knew that ampliative argument was something that existed. I tried making an example for myself of the difference between Deductive and Ampliative. Does a customer want cheese on their food? Good Arguments deductive: No, I think they are lactose intolerant. Ampliative: No, they don't like cheese. Dad argument The rest of the family has cheese on their food.
I think some people prefer to view their Opinions and POV as reality and fact because of how they feel, even if they are wrong. If the opposing argument is the truth, they don’t care or they don’t want to be wrong because ego. They want to feel right and happy. I think this breeds both ignorance/narcissism. Accepting accountability is hard for some
What I find is the phenomenon that keeps people from critically thinking most of the time is emotions, and/or intellectual laziness. I am quite amazed at the lack of curiosity of the average person. When you apply critical thinking, sometimes you figure out things that very few people understand, but if whatever that is you figured out is probably or certainly true, most people won't even consider the possibility that you may be correct because they heard a consensus opinion that what you are saying is not true. Whenever somebody tells me something that seems to make no sense, I try to be open minded and use critical thinking skill to evaluate the possibility that what they are saying might be correct or possibly have some truth to it. This is because I have used critical thinking skills and open mindedness to learn some facts about certain things that are true that most people don't believe because of propaganda, programming or a lack of critical thinking skill on their part...
+Niclas Holmsten That's what they call, postmodern philosophy, right? Though, I am not sure if that fits the criteria of critical thinking... More like critical believing?
I think one of the most important concepts is that of abductive reasoning supported by Bayesian analysis. This allows us to make sense of much that appears online where we don’t have enough info to determine what is true and what isn’t.
critical thinking is interesting, it makes me really think why we talk like we do. it also, helps me realize that everyone thinks different and interprets the world different than you but, by just looking at them you would never know that..
your microphone makes this video frustrating to watch. there is no compression and your peak volume is 300 hz rich. forgive me if this has been remedied in newer videos.
So I'm guessing ampliative arguments are an umbrella term for all types of arguments where the premises don't guarantee the conclusion? So this will include inductive and abductive arguments... or where do they fit in?
Hi David, yes that's right (see my responses to Lucas D's comment above). I'm following the great American philosopher Charles Peirce, who used the term "ampliative" to mean "non-deductive" (as far as I know he introduced the term, but I might be wrong about that). Given this usage, inductive and abductive arguments are two kinds of ampliative arguments.
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Rationality [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lInyN-WD9u4/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Rationality [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Dear UA-cam algorithm gods: Please recommend this series to every American, every day, all day, indefinitely. Immediately. Cheers.
No kidding! I just shared it on Facebook!
I second this suggestion! Which is really sad, because I am an American and can see that many of my countrymen/women desperately need to learn this.
@Illuminatus Messiah that's the problem with the religious. ZERO critical thinking. I'd never want to be that ignorant. Thanks though!
@Illuminatus Messiah "demon"strate, see what I did there 🤪, that a hell or god or jesus exists. Provide evidence... Anything! I want to believe!! 😂😂. You've got to be one of the worst fake christian trolls I've ever read btw. 😂
@Illuminatus Messiah China's government controlled media has also been known to put its own 'spin' on news stories and cover up things that will make the government look bad. Censorship is not a good thing.
The problem with rampant social media in the U.S. is not that it exists, but that people are not trained to recognize the differences between good, reliable, and verifiable sources and those that are not.
I graduated from NIU in 2003.
Now in 2021, I’m learning to appreciate the concept of critical thinking ♥️
LOL - X says "support me & i will reward you. If you do not, I will torture & brutalize you"
If X is Putin, Saddam - then "What a sick, evil person"
If X is God - then "Praise the Lord!"
Critical thinking indeed
Notes📝
1:53 What is Critical Thinking?
2:43 Why does [it] matter?
Human communication seems solely an exercise in persuasion based significantly on how we identify. Some people like to feel right, some people like to be the ones who decide, some people are conditioned to be contrarian, some people need others to see them in a certain light, others need to be liked, others want to be silly or add comic relief if they're uncomfortable, others want to connect and all of these motives mostly de-prioritize an accurate explanation of what occurs for emphasis on the way each conversationalist feels about another person or other people in their conversation.
The funny part is if you simply convey information from an object viewpoint you're seen as weird.
@Brian Jefferson, well said! Some people only believe what is news said, but the news can be biased, some people only trust in the name of scientists, but the scientists can be paid for commercial reason, some people believe tribes/races/blood in their vain and they cannot see any defects of their own, they follow their beliefs/passions/loved blindly...
I want to _be_ right and if that means you showing me how I am wrong so that I can be right in the future, I am grateful to you.
Largely, personal bias, which is not so much a factor in Critical Thinking. Ideally, learning the fundamentals of Critical Thinking allows us to see past those intrinsic personal biases. Based on my observations, I've come to the conclusion that some people are simply not wired for Critical Thinking. For them, it is not something that can be taught or learned. However, this conclusion is my own personal bias.
@@genkiferal7178 pleasantly said.
Imagine having to teach critical thinking via UA-cam. What has happened to our educational system? This is a fundamental skill! Good video.
In the US student loans are super expensive and they can’t be erased even if you file bankruptcy so a lot of people who want to learn go to UA-cam and online to learn.
It should be a class in high schools along with money management .
Yes, our educational system sucks but at least UA-cam has some good videos. Maybe kids will look at stuff like this.
The Rich need dumb people or else who would be their Working Drones?
@@wsc1955 yeah it blow my mind how it can be different once i apply critical thinking to my daily life, it seems like i see things in so many more aspects of it. Truly appriciate these kinds of content
I am learning Critical Thinking in Business subject, which is included in my MBA journey. This video is really helpful for me. I can learn about critical thinking and argument. My favorite part of this video is about the two facts of argument, deductive and ampliative. I am clear about those two facts now. Thank you so much Geoff Pynn.
"distinguish between good and bad reasons for 'believing' something" but emotions are fast and logic is slow - that's the challenge
Your logic is slow maybe.
@@Frisbieinstein it is...sometimes it doesn't even show up!
Yes, precisely, we aren't born gifted with the ability of thinking critically so that's why we must hone our abilities
If the girl confidently lists her dislike of Monty as a reason that he won't be appearing, is it inductive reasoning to believe that she is in fact in charge of who is invited?
Sure, given that:
1) The location of the party is at her home
2) She typically organizes parties amongst your social circle
3) Isn't known for being irrational
4) (Many other possible indicators)
He clearly states that. The problem oth the argument is AS IT STANDS she isn’t using that at as a premise
Then she should say because I didn't invite him!
I've gone to several parties I wasn't invited to and often times I was accepted. I've also been denied access to certain clubs but later found a way in.
I think this is a nice idea -- probably an inference to the best explanation. ("Why would she be giving *this* as a reason Monty won't be there? Probably because she is in charge of the invitations...")
i like how such simple daily human interactions we do everyday are being more closely evaluated and understood. why we do the things we do, or why we think the way we do. its not necessarily about whats right and wrong , but also looking at the interaction from an outside perspective
I sincerely want to congratulate this skilled lecturer. I really like the straight and short manner his presents Critical Thinking. It's very close to The New Rational Mind of Bachelard. So many people around us, and among them numerous high rank managers, suffer of egocentric and sociocentric pathology. They lean more on assumptions, prejudices and feelings than facts.
1. Critical thinking is having a good reason to believe in something.
2. The argument is that the premises have good reasons to believe in conclusion.
3. Valid argument is if premises is true, then conclusion is true.
4. A deductive argument is--- a conclusion must be true.
5. The ampliative argument is-- conclusion probably true.
Correction for your second point: The argument is the set of premises(reasons) that are there to support the conclusion.
Plot twist: Monty shows up to the party.
Monty shows up at the party...blind, crippled, midget lesbian boy standing 10 ft tall........with a knife
@@inkupup speaking to everyone in Chinese
Turns out that she (the friend) was mistaken about (2) and lying about (3); but (1) was accurate.
F. Aragon rockin sunglasses, cool AF
Dudes in China
Thank you - Your resulting diagram looks like the inside of my head. It's a comfort to know that there are other people who think visually as messy as I do and can still make sense at the end of it all. I appreciate the way you presented.
When we first look inside instead at everything outside it is a mess and there are very few good teachers. Falun Dafa is the Way.
this broadens the word "argument" to not just be defined as a debate on who is correct over a situation. but looking at the word argument more SIMPLY and raw. because we are people with brains and have the ability to think and elaborate whenever a statement is made, whether it be by us or others. we always think of reasons we might be skeptical or what proof or evidence gives us the reason to believe the argument aka statement is true.
Ampliative arguments are used when there is no way for you to gather enough information for a deductive argument. This was just the video I was looking for. Thank you
Thanks, I wish you'd have been there through my college years...
Would you have gone to the party?
@@hi.moriarty nooooo
This is definitely useful for a college/university degree, but it’s also extremely useful for the rest of your life, so make sure you get a good understanding of it.
philosophy is good for reason too
@3:00 its an assumption rhT "rational beliefs and/or having true beliefs is best."
That false belief leads to entirely cictional fields such as economic theory.
Most people prefer beliefs and arguments that give them a dopamine release, sadly these are often not true and often not entirely rationalised
Sometimes I wonder how great it would be for me to be able to make people understand the benefits of critical thinking. Your video does exactly that, thanks!
I enjoyed this. It was very clear and makes me want to continue reading further lectures. However, I am deaf and rely on subtitles and was so distracted by the constant drawing hand that I had difficult processing the arguments.
Thank you for this feedback. I plan to develop a series on critical thinking skills and will take your concerns into consideration.
The very best teaching available today is Falun Dafa (The Great Way).
Very interesting. Most people use ampliative arguments as if they were deductive...
Nerd
And then you have morons who *assume* someone is making a deductive argument even when it is implicitley or explicitly stated that they are making an ampliative argument. For example, look at some of the criticisms on William Lane Craig. A lot of them rely on the notion that he's making deductive arguments, even though he's clearly not. Internet atheists make some of the worst arguments and criticisms I've ever seen...
But isn't callingv someone a moron in the middle of a discussion about appropriate argument structure and critical thinking a bit inappropriate?
Not only that, but it's self-defeating. Since you have set yourself up in opposition to atheists, I would assume that you are pro-theism in some way, and therefore would be more likely to want to convert the atheist or at least defeat their arguments. Putting "moron" on at the top of a comment when you have such a goal is extremely self-defeating and probably leads to an increase of the number of atheists discounting your arguments completely.
I'd say most people use ampliative arguments in lack of deductive ones. You rarely need to make arguments for things that are obvious, and you rarely hold that much more knowledge than people you surround yourself with! :D
@@greg77389 2008 internet called and it wants its internet atheist comment back.
4:56 depends on the context of the premises of the given example in the video.
Premise 1: She can't stand Monty.
Premise 2: She wanted to have a good time without the presence of Monty.
Conclusion: Monty won't be at the party. -this could be a true statement and a valid conclusion. Since we could assume;
Two possibilities: 1) She is the organizer of the party, and she has full authority over it.
2)Monty doesn't want to come either.
Of course these are assumptions. However, as long as it is a possible reason, we should take into account all the possibilities only then we decide if the premises follow/satisfy the conclusion.
wow a video about critical thinking on UA-cam that's actually about critical thinking and not basic thinking. Nice, and thank you.
It's a tough go when the first thing in the video gives an incorrect definition. Or more accurately, an incomplete definition. Critical thinking includes making sure you have good reasons for your beliefs, but that's not all critical thinking is. Fundamentally, it's using reason, rationality and an unbiased apporach to analyze information, typically to make decisions with.
beliefs....oh dear
@@user-gz4ve8mw9l Beliefs are like anuses. Everyone has one.
@@RichardChappell1 Belief relies on a 'leap of faith' which to me is the polar opposite to why we use critical thinking. Know for sure, not because you want to believe something.
Yes I agree Richard Chappell ! I’m 38 and I think I was in the last generation that avoided being educated in the way this professor obviously is/was . The problem is how widespread this incompleteness of thought is now . I’m so glad I can hear incomplete claims around me and go “wait a minute….” What you pointed out in your comment I think is the key to understanding how our younger generations of Academics and though-leaders were brainwashed or brain-strangled. I could be wrong and making a lot of assumptions but that’s why we talk to each other to try and find out!
@@GameOver-hu1vi Surely belief is a technical word in debate. It means what you understand to be true. You seem to be equating it with RELIGIOUS belief, which is a tiny sub-set of the correct meaning of the word.
This introduction to critical thinking is top-notch! The clarity and depth in the explanations really help sharpen reasoning skills. A must-watch for anyone wanting to improve their analytical thinking! 😍
Hadn't heard the term "ampliative." Heard the idea expressed as "inductive."
The black background in the drawings was a welcome choice.
This is all fantastic. I myself have been practicing CT skills for years in a hundred more years i may get better at it. This video is great for someone with background. But some with low education or elderly. Far too many jumping around. THE POINT is i am
looking for the best SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING of this CT skills for those “lazy” persons that accept everything they hear and view ???
3:50 the conclusion is not supported by the argument, but by the premises.
When he says, "Good arguments support their conclusions," he doesn't mean that the entire argument (including the conclusion) supports the conclusion, he means that the argument is such that it gives you good reasons to believe the conclusion. In other words, good arguments are arguments that support their conclusions because good arguments give you good reasons to believe their conclusions.
Thank you so much!!! I have been struggling with my critical thinking course. I think i have it and then I don't! This series is finally getting it to sink in!
Thank you so much for this. this is perfect, and should be required reading/viewing
At either end of the spectrum there is absolute certainty that something is true and absolute certainty that something is false. When there is any uncertainty in between those absolutes, then there can only be an evaluation of probability. Therefore, it is more honest to say that something is likely or unlikely, whereas "belief" is an irrational and incoherent conviction about an uncertainty, usually based on personal preference rather than an objective assessment of facts.
I understand that categorizing ideas, concepts, such as the nature of arguments, is part of the human existence as a rational being. But I would like to state that there is nothing guaranteed, no idea is really truthfully, absolute . As mentioned in the video,critical thinking is about making truthful judgments , even though there is nothing absolutely truthfully in our existence. At times, I think to myself and realize that life is a gamble, and we are always trying to deceive ourselves of the contrary.
Very interesting, I look forward to watching the rest of the series. I've just had a baby and have become a full-time dad so I need things like this that'll keep me entertained as well as educated.
The first argument would be a good one if the person telling you that is the person hosting the party.
Soon as it became an option, my mind instantly went to "who's initiated the party" because naturally if the person who doesn't like Monty is hosting the party, why would he be invited?
Thank you for giving me a chance to learn something useful today, with the help of your video
I learned about critical thinking while preparing for GRE test. Its actually fundamental skill nowadays
I like this explanation. I loved the visual and the examples given. Thank you for making this video!
Like most discrimination's I find in philosophy the difference between an "deductive" or "ampliative" argument as given here, is illusory. The point is, in the real world you cannot say with 100% accuracy that Monty is in Beijing, or that he cannot get back from there in a afternoon; so both arguments are in fact ampliative. With mathematical formulae, there is always a chance that you just got your sums wrong, so the ampliative appliqué applies even here.
this isn't critical thinking, this is making logic of sense...critical thinking is skepticism in it's truest form. critical thinking is not reaching conclusions
Well if the professor who is teaching at a University is teaching incorrectly, you should go down to there right away and take his job by golly!
monty's gonna have his own party. he dont need those guys.
keep it up monty.
thank you for this lesson, I never knew that ampliative argument was something that existed.
I tried making an example for myself of the difference between Deductive and Ampliative.
Does a customer want cheese on their food?
Good Arguments
deductive: No, I think they are lactose intolerant.
Ampliative: No, they don't like cheese.
Dad argument
The rest of the family has cheese on their food.
*bad argument
I think some people prefer to view their Opinions and POV as reality and fact because of how they feel, even if they are wrong. If the opposing argument is the truth, they don’t care or they don’t want to be wrong because ego. They want to feel right and happy. I think this breeds both ignorance/narcissism. Accepting accountability is hard for some
Commenting for the Algorithm to take this to the vast majority of people using this platform
We had to go over something like this in my psychology classes, but this is well explained and beautifully broken down
This information also conjuncts with precal probable theories and hyperbole problem solving in high school and college math classes
Thank you for this useful video it's important to know the difference between deductive and ampliative arguments 👍🏻💚
Critical Thinking = Common Sense.
What I find is the phenomenon that keeps people from critically thinking most of the time is emotions, and/or intellectual laziness. I am quite amazed at the lack of curiosity of the average person. When you apply critical thinking, sometimes you figure out things that very few people understand, but if whatever that is you figured out is probably or certainly true, most people won't even consider the possibility that you may be correct because they heard a consensus opinion that what you are saying is not true.
Whenever somebody tells me something that seems to make no sense, I try to be open minded and use critical thinking skill to evaluate the possibility that what they are saying might be correct or possibly have some truth to it.
This is because I have used critical thinking skills and open mindedness to learn some facts about certain things that are true that most people don't believe because of propaganda, programming or a lack of critical thinking skill on their part...
Examples of such things that people believe due to progpaganda?
This is really going to help with my test tomorrow!
Now have critical thinking while watching this.
+Niclas Holmsten That's what they call, postmodern philosophy, right? Though, I am not sure if that fits the criteria of critical thinking... More like critical believing?
@Joshua Bailey to be fair, this *is* the introduction, this would be the place you would expect to see the basics
Niclas Holmst
ok, no one asked :O
I like how you slipped in Atlas with the work "SHRUG" at 4:06. Clever boy.
A really nice introduction to critical thinking 🎉. Also questions and commands are not capable of being true or false, therefore are not statements.
1:00 The sheer bias and irrationality in that first option is physically hurting.
Thanks it helps me alot to evaluate things that have been ask to me, it's usually related to news tho
This should be shown in every school at every grade. And to the voters of the United States.
I feel like this is basic and intuitive. But I also understand that many people don't see the difference between absolute probability and possibility.
Without truth, we are lost. Stand up for truth!
Thanks for this lecture it has help me to understand more about Arguments 🙏🏽 .
But please the next one try to be little bit slow .
Thanks for posting this. Deductive vs Ampliative. It helps me structure my thoughts + discussion at work and family
I wish I had watched this during my first year!
Thank god, I'm find this channel
How is ampliative logic differ from inferential logic?
And why doesn't my spell checker recognize 'ampliative'?
When I heard it I assumed they're interchangeable. Also curious if anyone can distinguish.
So is Ampliative the same as Inductive Argument/reasoning then?
I think one of the most important concepts is that of abductive reasoning supported by Bayesian analysis. This allows us to make sense of much that appears online where we don’t have enough info to determine what is true and what isn’t.
critical thinking is interesting, it makes me really think why we talk like we do. it also, helps me realize that everyone thinks different and interprets the world different than you but, by just looking at them you would never know that..
Thank you sir! Very clear explanation!
Learning about logical fallacies is also very important.
i'm happy i was here instead of pushing my problems aside to play more games even if i'm a little bored
your microphone makes this video frustrating to watch. there is no compression and your peak volume is 300 hz rich. forgive me if this has been remedied in newer videos.
ProjectAgain You're forgiven.
Yep, you are completely correct. This was one of our earliest videos, more an experiment than a finished product.
is that deductive?
ProjectAgain Probably would’ve been an easy check before you made your comment 😂
Definitely needs compression
Thinking is self evident, a truth, everything else, no matter how critical, is nothing but nonsense...
This is very concise and made loads of sense. Well explanatory, I enjoyed it. Thanks
Geoff Pynn looks like the modern day Socrates! wow! haha very nice and good video! saved it in the favourites so i can study it more!
This is my first course for BA General Psychology can I use this as course material for that class?
Why did I not come across this video in my younger years?!
I think your argument is wrong Monty ca go to the party but deductive argument its highly probable...! Lets argue....:)
Thanks for the refresher!! I needed this for my SWK 692 class!!! U rock!!
Good reasons vs bad reasons for belief guides human behavior.
Thoroughly enjoyable. Thanks for doing this.
So I'm guessing ampliative arguments are an umbrella term for all types of arguments where the premises don't guarantee the conclusion?
So this will include inductive and abductive arguments... or where do they fit in?
Hi David, yes that's right (see my responses to Lucas D's comment above). I'm following the great American philosopher Charles Peirce, who used the term "ampliative" to mean "non-deductive" (as far as I know he introduced the term, but I might be wrong about that). Given this usage, inductive and abductive arguments are two kinds of ampliative arguments.
Am curious as to who was hosting the party?
Thank you. Your lecture is very usful to understand the critical thinking.
Glad it was helpful!
Finally a good video on Critical Thinking, among all the BS that goes around YT.
A good teaching system!
Thank you so much this is really helpful. You just earned a new subscriber.
a good intro of critical thinking... other name of ampliative argument is inductive argument.
Thank you kindly for sharing this Critical Thinking video.
I love Wireless Philosophy! Made me subscribe to the "Pagan Philosophy" channel too!
Excellent!! Love it ❤
Great Video and much needed at this time.
Excellent. Easy to understand with examples.
Good video, and I am in awe that you can draw in color with a black Sharpie!
very clear and simple to understand thank you
This is one hell of a video my man...
I find it mind-boggling that you have to explain this to people.
Love the topic. Critical thinking should be applied every time you watch CNN.
I love you bro. Thank you so much for this I enjoy learning these things so much and you're a really good teacher. Subbed
Thanks for the sub!
I really enjoyed this!
Well done very useful when applied in daily life
Hi can someone recommend the best book about critical thinking thanks
Can you suggest some reading material(preferably online) to practice all that you teach ?
Nolt
This is interesting. I'll give this "critical thinking" thing a try some time.