I like this video, and I think the message of it is a good one. I want to nitpick one point though. I disagree with the way you presented this. It's mostly semantics, as the gist of your message is pretty much spot on, but your explanation of where the dispute is was just a bit off. I think about logical argumentation somewhat differently than how you have presented it. You said that you can disagree with the A part (pizza is unhealthy), the therefore part (banning pizza might not make people healthier), or the B part (do you really want to live in a world without pizza?). If the "A therefore B" statement is in fact a logical argument, then your characterization of where the dispute is is off. First off, the statment "pizza should be banned" is itself the conclusion--the B part. Any argument against the A or the "therefore" part is implicitly also an argument against the B part (unless the logic somehow works out that eliminating one of your premises doesn't in fact change what the logical conclusion is, though that's uncommon). As for where the disagreement lies, I would posit that all of these disagreements you listed are actually with the A part. Most arguments involve a part A composed of many different beliefs, assumptions, and value judgments. The question of whether the "therefore" is valid is in fact a question of whether or not their logical reasoning is valid, on a very formal level [eg. (((P ^ Q) > R) ^ -P ^ -Q) > -R would be an example of a logically incorrect statement that someone might fallacously make, if they fail to realize that something else could give R even if P ^ Q is lacking]. If you disagree with the conclusion B (which you do if you're arguing), then you are saying either A is wrong, and/or your formal logical reasoning getting from A to B is wrong. In real world arguments, people often do exactly what you described; they don't argue very logically, and they often discuss other, potentially irrelevant, issues without pinpointing where the actual disagreement is occurring. Sometimes the dispute is in the actual if-then logic part, because people do sometimes make logical fallacies, but I think the overwhelming majority of the time it's a hidden premise in part A that is causing you to disagree with the conclusion. You might think the argument is such: Premises -pizza is unhealthy -people should be healthy Conclusion -pizza should be banned But the real argument is in fact something more along the lines of: Overt Premises -pizza is unhealthy -people should be healthy Implicit (and sometimes hidden) Premises -if people eat less pizza, they will eat healthier foods instead -health is a more important value than freedom of dietary choice -banning something is an effective form of behavior modification Conclusion -pizza should be banned Furthermore, how "pizza" and "healthy" are even defined is also a part of the implicit premises. What you attributed to being a dispute of the "therefore" and B parts, are in fact the hidden parts of A (that banning pizza will improve health and that health is more important than freedom/choice). In my opinion, the key to effective argumentation is to illuminate the implicit premises so that they are no longer hidden, because, usually, the reason you disagree with the conclusion is because you disagree with the premises, either the truth of them or the values implicit in them, and the reason the argument keeps going without being resolved, is that you've failed to identify what hidden premises it is you are really arguing about. Often times the premises are themselves if-then logical statements to be disputed in the same manner (eg. if you ban pizza, people will eat healthier foods instead). Once you realize where the disagreement truly lies, you can see that it's because you're working from different facts or values, and from there you can argue more precisely or agree to disagree if it's the sort of thing that can't be resolved (or you just don't feel like arguing any further).
Dude... I so love you. :D And as someone who is sooooo poor at those online debates and have found myself exasperated trying to do it with YOU! this was super awesome and helpful. :D Goooo Josh!
Daksin - He takes your very good suggestion by putting the title blocks from former videos in as illustratios in newer videos! Not only good reminders but also good advertising!
@@THUNKShow LOL, do _not_ worry about quality :D ...I learned a lot, so here's an esoteric meta-joke for you: P1 · If a channel does not have quality, it has no subscribers. P2 · This channel _does_ has quality. C · This really makes no sense!
Just to clear up the logic vs. compassion problem. Every problem is subject to underlying logical constraints - resources, physics. You can answer those problems logically but not compassionately. Some problems are emotional. They can be dealt with logically Or compassionately. Only logic can deal with all categories of problems effectively, therefore, logic is primary to compassion. If you doubt this, try making an emotional decision logically and a logical decision emotionally and see how it comes out. Good luck.
Hey Josh, bit surprised that on a video on about logical arguments, something more often than not, if not always, involving an opposition, that there are only likes and no dislikes to act as a logical opposition to the likes. So, in the spirit of the video, and despite me actually enjoying watching this, I'm going to have to leave a dislike. Thank you for making this video though, it very much deserves as much likes as it gets
Man, what a difference 7 years makes. (JIC you're interested in my current comments on it, feel free to check out my retrospective video, where I MST3K it. ua-cam.com/video/Oy7HvWOLxWM/v-deo.html )
I like this video, and I think the message of it is a good one. I want to nitpick one point though.
I disagree with the way you presented this. It's mostly semantics, as the gist of your message is pretty much spot on, but your explanation of where the dispute is was just a bit off. I think about logical argumentation somewhat differently than how you have presented it.
You said that you can disagree with the A part (pizza is unhealthy), the therefore part (banning pizza might not make people healthier), or the B part (do you really want to live in a world without pizza?). If the "A therefore B" statement is in fact a logical argument, then your characterization of where the dispute is is off.
First off, the statment "pizza should be banned" is itself the conclusion--the B part. Any argument against the A or the "therefore" part is implicitly also an argument against the B part (unless the logic somehow works out that eliminating one of your premises doesn't in fact change what the logical conclusion is, though that's uncommon).
As for where the disagreement lies, I would posit that all of these disagreements you listed are actually with the A part. Most arguments involve a part A composed of many different beliefs, assumptions, and value judgments. The question of whether the "therefore" is valid is in fact a question of whether or not their logical reasoning is valid, on a very formal level [eg. (((P ^ Q) > R) ^ -P ^ -Q) > -R would be an example of a logically incorrect statement that someone might fallacously make, if they fail to realize that something else could give R even if P ^ Q is lacking]. If you disagree with the conclusion B (which you do if you're arguing), then you are saying either A is wrong, and/or your formal logical reasoning getting from A to B is wrong.
In real world arguments, people often do exactly what you described; they don't argue very logically, and they often discuss other, potentially irrelevant, issues without pinpointing where the actual disagreement is occurring. Sometimes the dispute is in the actual if-then logic part, because people do sometimes make logical fallacies, but I think the overwhelming majority of the time it's a hidden premise in part A that is causing you to disagree with the conclusion.
You might think the argument is such:
Premises
-pizza is unhealthy
-people should be healthy
Conclusion
-pizza should be banned
But the real argument is in fact something more along the lines of:
Overt Premises
-pizza is unhealthy
-people should be healthy
Implicit (and sometimes hidden) Premises
-if people eat less pizza, they will eat healthier foods instead
-health is a more important value than freedom of dietary choice
-banning something is an effective form of behavior modification
Conclusion
-pizza should be banned
Furthermore, how "pizza" and "healthy" are even defined is also a part of the implicit premises. What you attributed to being a dispute of the "therefore" and B parts, are in fact the hidden parts of A (that banning pizza will improve health and that health is more important than freedom/choice).
In my opinion, the key to effective argumentation is to illuminate the implicit premises so that they are no longer hidden, because, usually, the reason you disagree with the conclusion is because you disagree with the premises, either the truth of them or the values implicit in them, and the reason the argument keeps going without being resolved, is that you've failed to identify what hidden premises it is you are really arguing about. Often times the premises are themselves if-then logical statements to be disputed in the same manner (eg. if you ban pizza, people will eat healthier foods instead). Once you realize where the disagreement truly lies, you can see that it's because you're working from different facts or values, and from there you can argue more precisely or agree to disagree if it's the sort of thing that can't be resolved (or you just don't feel like arguing any further).
Dude... I so love you. :D
And as someone who is sooooo poor at those online debates and have found myself exasperated trying to do it with YOU! this was super awesome and helpful. :D
Goooo Josh!
Hope this helps alleviate some exasperation! Let me know how it goes!
And you know what? He really cares!
Start from the beginning go to the end and stop. Hope these videos never end!❤💎
this was good and made me think
you can argue on facts
argue on values
but they're different to me
It may be useful in future episodes to link back to the PREVIOUS video as well, to give people a refresher.
Daksin - He takes your very good suggestion by putting the title blocks from former videos in as illustratios in newer videos! Not only good reminders but also good advertising!
Anybody have an "n"?
An important assumption in this video is that you can good reasons for holding certain values. I hope we talk about that at something.
Why doesn't this channel have more subscribers at this point? It makes no sense? :O
I mean if this episode is any indication of its quality...;)
@@THUNKShow LOL, do _not_ worry about quality :D ...I learned a lot, so here's an esoteric meta-joke for you:
P1 · If a channel does not have quality, it has no subscribers.
P2 · This channel _does_ has quality.
C · This really makes no sense!
laughing at the hilarious captions at 0:13 - 0:17. Great video altogether :)
Glad you enjoyed it! ;)
Thunk love that name
Until recently, Logic was taught alongside Rhetoric and Grammar as the most basic education.
Don't you dare touch muh pizza!
Except to put more anchovies on it!
rewatching your old videos and realizing that you really really love pizza :D
Who doesn't?!
Just to clear up the logic vs. compassion problem. Every problem is subject to underlying logical constraints - resources, physics. You can answer those problems logically but not compassionately. Some problems are emotional. They can be dealt with logically Or compassionately. Only logic can deal with all categories of problems effectively, therefore, logic is primary to compassion.
If you doubt this, try making an emotional decision logically and a logical decision emotionally and see how it comes out. Good luck.
Hey Josh, bit surprised that on a video on about logical arguments, something more often than not, if not always, involving an opposition, that there are only likes and no dislikes to act as a logical opposition to the likes. So, in the spirit of the video, and despite me actually enjoying watching this, I'm going to have to leave a dislike. Thank you for making this video though, it very much deserves as much likes as it gets
Man, what a difference 7 years makes. (JIC you're interested in my current comments on it, feel free to check out my retrospective video, where I MST3K it. ua-cam.com/video/Oy7HvWOLxWM/v-deo.html )
@@THUNKShow Hell yeah I am
"Show them that their position conflicts with their beliefs, and they'll give up the position"
You've not spoken to a religious person then?
+George Rickard It worked for me when I was religious!
Wow! Is this ever true!!! Several of my closest friends ( and one relative!)
:)
Every argument starts with an assumption
And assumptions are a great way of making an ass out of you & ...mumptions.