Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates Some simple, but not easy, thoughts on logic, truth and what we're really talking about: reasoning.
lol@@SansDeity Less than one minutes clips for Instagram! Very difficult to get messages across on that site unless it's a meme. I bet it would crack a few heads open. EVERYONE on my list watches my clips, even theists.
Hey matt! I appreciate this so much! Where and what are some of your favorite resources? I would love to check them out if you are able to throw them up? I'm ready to start logicing all over the place! Thanks for all you do!
@Jim Thinnsen Leaving aside the Gish Gallop, when you try and insult science by comparing it to faith, you actually don't make faith look any better. At least those of us who believe in science acknowledge that there are gaps in what we know, rather than papering them over with "a god did it" and pretending that that solves everything.
I've seen this strange statement before "when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE", which puts us, in our limited capacity somehow as the measurement for what is possible. Our technology is limited, within my grandma's lifetime the very basics such as electricity, cars, planes, computers, phones (let alone mobile devices) all came into existence. That's one lifetime. Why would you hold us up as evidence that if we can't do something now that it can never be done?If your argument is which option needs less faith between "natural causes created the universe" or "an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable super being from another dimension created the universe, from nothing, by thought alone" then yes, natural causes requires a lot less faith.
Science itself depends of unprovable assumptions. Besides, can you demonstrate that you can trust your own mind and perception of reality - without using your brain (reasoning in a vicious circle) in order to do so? How about this: Are you your brain or do you use your brain to think?
@@werelemur1138 Wow, you left the premises a bit prematurely... Gish Gallop nonsense is just what folks who can't answer the questions say as they look for the door... Also, in reference to science, see my comment to Randy Clark... I wonder what happened to the 5 fools who thumbed you up...
Love your videos, Matt. Don’t know how to get this health info to you so I apologize for being off topic. Please look into mild weight lifting to increase the muscle mass we lose as we get older. (Just hand weights, pushups, etc.) It really helps type 2 diabetics to regulate their sugar to have more muscle as well as lessen the chance of many injuries. We need you hale and hearty to continue your good work!
@@thewhat531 It took me a minute because im stupid but damn that actually makes sense... I guess all athiests dont confuse logic with reasoning though some may do it.
Love you Matt! You and all the people who've helped me stop thinking my gay/atheist/buddhist friends will burn in hell. Seriously I've become such a better thinker/person/friend since abandoning faith.
Better? May I ask who or what is the source of this standard of yours? Can it be tested scientifically? How much does it weigh? Why do you believe everything magically popped into existence out of nothing? If there isn't anything wrong with being gay, atheist, or Buddhist, then what is wrong with be Muslim, Christian, a Nazi, or a member of the KKK? Yes, it is easier to skip along the primrose path having jettisoned your critical thinking and just chosen to go, "Whatever!" Such mindlessness! But then, ignorance is often bliss... at least for a while.
@@jacoblee5796 Yeah, Diogenes isn't coming back, is he? Probably not... *"WHAT STANDARD ARE YOU REFERRING TO?"* Why should I tip my hand before my question is answered? What standard are you using? *"I DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING, I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW."* But given what we do know, what are the options regarding origins? *"HOWEVER ITS THEISTS WHO BELIEVE EVERYTHING MAGICAL CAME INTO EXISTENCE."* Can you quote one single person who actually says that? I'm sorry, but given the context, the terms 'magic' and 'supernatural' are simply not synonymous. However, this is an error that scoffers seem to revel in making. It is all too common. *"NO I DO NOT THINK ITS WRONG..."* Is there anything that is, in reality, objectively wrong? *"I DO HOWEVER THINK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALOUD TO VOTE."* Uhm... Okay... But then, ALL men are religious, so... *"BUT YES BEING NAZI OR KKK MEMBER IS WRONG."* So you do believe that human life somehow has intrinsic value and that objective moral values and duties exist then? *"I DON'T NEED A TRANSCENDENT BEING TO KNOW THIS."* Actually, you don't need to _believe_ in a transcendent being to know that; you do however need a Transcendent being for what you claim to know to actually be true. *"THE FACT THAT YOU DO IS EXACTLY WHY I FEEL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE!"* First of all your claim is a false one, as I just explained above. *"ALSO ALMOST ALL NAZI'S AND KKK MEMBERS ARE/WHERE CHRISTIAN!"* Sure they were! Believe what you wish! Tell yourself any kind of fairy-tale you like... But I'm gonna need to see some actual evidence. _Do you have any?_ Also, you did not answer the question. *"SO I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT YOUR POINT IS THERE!?"* Wasn't making a point, I was asking a question. The question still stands. YOU assume there is a standard, so may I ask WHO or WHAT is the source of whatever standard that YOU are appealing to?
@@jacoblee5796 Do you mind if I do this tediously and go line-by-line again? It irritates some folks, but I want to keep it straight and not miss anything. And I think the subject is extremely important. *"I HONESTLY DON'T GET THIS STANDARD QUESTION YOU KEEP ASKING!?"* Well, you're acting like some things really are wrong - for everybody - regardless of what they might personally think about it. And that would require that morality is not just a matter of personal opinion, right? And even if it were just ones personal feelings or preferences, then why should we think that it ever applies to someone else? But you not only believe that a moral standard applies to us right now, but that it also applied to Nazis in the early 20th century and members of the KKK despite their personal feelings. _Correct?_ So are you not imposing a standard on them? What is the rational basis for this universal and timeless moral standard you're imposing on all men? _Fair question, isn't it?_ *"DO YOU NEED SOME SORT OF STANDARD ON WHICH TO BASE YOUR MORALS?"* If you want to be rational and consistent in your thinking, absolutely! Lots of folks just never consciously ask themselves that fundamental question: Why do I believe that some human actions are objectively wrong? _Just think about that a bit and then try to come up with a good naturalistic explanation._ What is your best explanation? *"YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG USING YOUR OWN BRAIN AND SENSE OF WELL BEING?"* But that's just it. People really do have this general sense of right and wrong - and believe it applies across cultures and time periods! But how could that be? How do we explain that in a way that explains that sense of _oughtness_ we all have? Well being ≠ moral absolute. Preferences ≠ oughtness. *"DO YOU NOT HAVE EMPATHY FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN?"* But that raises a number of questions for me: 1. Are you saying that men _ought_ to feel empathy? (See how the moral absolute gets smuggled in there?) 2. How much empathy is enough? 3. If I don't feel empathy, is nothing wrong 'for me'? 4. Can I not recognize or do the right thing if I don't feel any empathy at all? *"AND STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE A POINT BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY ARE!"* You know what, I'll grant you that. I always hope that the questions will lead to conversation, but the questions are so rarely answered. So my point would be the same question: Does he have a rational basis-a naturalistic explanation by which he determines what is good and bad, right and wrong, that is consistent with his own worldview-or is it just an assumption or perhaps based upon emotions or simply what he was told growing up-or could it be something he's never really thought about before? Obviously, he doesn't want to discuss it. But it seems like you do. Hopefully this comment will help us move the discussion forward. *"COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND EXPLAIN THIS STATEMENT? THIS MIGHT BE THE DUMBEST F'N THING I'VE EVER READ! THANKS IN ADVANCE!"* Hold on there cowboy! Let's keep the emotions in check. Let me try this again. You really do believe that some things really are wrong-no matter who you are, what you believe, how you personally feel, or even what time period you lived in, correct? Let's just wade in here: WHY do you believe that?
@@jacoblee5796 You're not answering my questions and until you do we really can't progress here. Besides that, it is clear that YOU believe in objective moral values and duties even though you say you don't (you just proved this again - slavery?) and that you are unable to keep your emotions in check and be respectful. If you actually asked questions instead of pretending to know what you clearly don't, then this might be a productive exchange. So, how about actually answering a few of the questions from my previous post and we'll go from there?
@@jacoblee5796 So you're not going to answer any of the questions I asked but demand that I answer you? Okay, we're done here. And no, you didn't answer the question you claim to have answered. At least, not in a rational or consistent manner. You're either deluded or simply being immoral and lying. You also clearly believe in what you claim you don't believe (objective moral values and duties - you demonstrated this yet again in your latest comment), so again, you're either deluded or lying. As for 'magic sky daddy', well, you'll have to define that term for me because I don't believe in anything that could properly be defined as any such thing. You're strawmanning, which means you are lying about my claims and my position. You're a liar who clearly doesn't have the stones to continue this conversation honestly. Well if you don't wish to continue, then stop pretending that you do! (Which of course is another example of lying.)
Matt, I find myself appreciating your logic videos differently but no less intensely than your ADP videos. Why do we need more logic videos? Let me give you an analogy. I like woodworking. And when I teach others on the process of woodworking, I find it essential to teach about the different tools (saws) needed to attain the different cuts. For instance, you need a 90 degrees cut? Use a chop saw. Want wood cut at 45 degrees? Use a miter saw. Your miter saws cut angles that chop saws won't cut. Here, within the miter family you even have ones with different capabilities and features: compound and bevels for those rare cuts like the ones found on crown moulding. You even have miters that slide for longer cuts. What about an arch finish? If that's the case, forget your chop and miter saws, you need a scroll saw. Wood workers use scroll saws to create the arches and elliptical shapes found on decorative pieces. Most of the delicate, beautiful wood pieces found on ebay have been created by wood workers using a scroll saw. Those guys are artists. All woodworkers have table saws, which are the go-to saws for most cuts. But what about re-sawing stock? Here, your table saw becomes useless as a tire iron. For re-sawing, you need a band saw. Want a large hole? Use a jig saw. Want to chop down a tree? Use a chain saw...etc My point: even though all these saws have different purposes, they're all vital tools for effective wood working. And no one tool can replace the other. Having said that, Matt, we greatly appreciate your ADP videos for helping us become effective thinkers. But by providing us with more logic videos, you'll be introducing us the tools needed to become even better thinkers. You have an audience that spans different education backgrounds and ages. Not all of us have been exposed to the tools needed to properly debate thiests. In my analogy above, some of us may be using chainsaws to carve out arches.
Matt, by chance did you do, or do you plan on doing a review of your debate with inspiring philosophy? If you’ve done so can you link it here? Please and thanks.
Two resources that helped me with understanding basic logic (mainly deductive, but also some inductive) is Kevin deLaplante youtube channel and a basic (very basic) computer program called Logic Cola by Harry Gensler.
@MrStripeyDog "and you probably will see that atheism is not based on reason." I have watched countless debates and not once has that become apparent. If you are seeing that, then there are psychological explanations for why you do.
There is a 3rd option on the accepted premise/rejected conclusion: to reject logic. So the options are: 1. Reject the premise. 2. Accept the conclusion. 3. Abandon logic for this case. I have seen the third in practice, where someone accepted all the premises but rejected the conclusion. And still thought they were being rational in doing so.
My father taught Me to never believe anything. He told Me to place probabilities and adjust them as new data come along, evaluating those data by asking, "Does that explain what I see?" I have found this has helped Me in avoiding attachment to any given premise, and I think it would be awesome if everyOne approached things in this way. Thanks for the logical discussion!
Gday mate , I was just wondering how to find out your tour schedule? I have looked you up for tours and it didn't seem to be to helpful . Although I am not the computer savvy . Would be great if you came back to Australia , maybe even Perth so I don't have to fly over east to see you , even though I would ... HAHAHAHAHAHAH Cheers.
When I say "that seems logical" (the most common case this would come up for me) I generally mean something like "that follows", which is indeed in reference to the logical validity of the warrant / enthymeme / second premise involved in getting from situation to response, which is more related to validity than soundness (because we're not questioning the truth of the first premise so I'm not asserting it). But I'm not using "logic" in the technical sense used in philosophy and I don't expect it to be taken that way. I don't consider philosophy to have as much ownership of common terminology as science or any social study, and it's something I largely opt out of. It definitely does not have exclusive ownership over the common word "logic". "By that logic" and "by that reasoning" do indeed mean the same thing, and refer to the step from facts to conclusion, not the facts. What is in a syllogism obfuscatingly buried in the second premise but is more clearly abstracted as the warrant.
Get into the difference between hypothesis, theory, fact and so on. It's probably obvious but it's still handy to have it summarized to explain it to people who clearly don't understand what those words mean.
"...might be a problem for people who appreciate logic even more than I do." Do these "people" even exist??? Haha thanks for another video I've been watching and learning from you for well over a decade. Thank you for spreading knowledge out to all those like me who are interested to truth and how go about concluding what is true.
The idea was: "The moon is made of green cheese." is something I accept. *Through some process of logic* I determine that this implies "There must be mice on the moon." I do *not* accept there are mice on the moon. This a *contradiction*, so I must either reject the idea the moon is made of green cheese, or accept the idea there is mice on the moon. In mathematical form: A and ~B A implies B Therefore, B Contradiction: B is true and ~B is true. (~B refers to 'not B' or 'B is false')
Andrew Trout Your *proof* doesn’t make any sense. An indirect proof (reductio argument, in formal logic) seeks to prove a statement true by showing that assuming it’s negation will lead to a contradiction among the premises, which, by LeM will ensure that the original statement is derived. 1. P->Q /:.Q 2. P 3. ~Q [Assumed Premise] 4. ~P [Modus Tollens: 1,2] 5. P^~P [Conjunction: 2,4] 6. Q [Indirect Proof: 3-5] Matt’s mentioning of this was nonsensical, as he was speaking on the informal use of the concept which regards content and is outside the scope of the *logic* he seemed to be addressing, however sloppily done along the way.
A reductio is generally a formal indirect proof IE if you are looking for X you start with -Xabd from there derive Y * -Y Your explanation of a reductio is more in line with informal reasoning which seems to be outside the scope of this video. You may want to do a follow-up on informal reasoning and cogency
It is generally the case that when Matt speaks on logic, he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about. Your comment is the only one I’ve found where someone actually points out a glaring flaw. 1. P->Q /:. Q 2. P 3. ~Q [AP] 4. ~P [MT:1,3] 5. P^~P [Conj:2,4] 6. Q [IP:3-5] This is a very basic thing to know regarding logic. Matt is all over the place. He focuses on categorical syllogisms as one would with syllogistic logic, yet *seems* to veer off into modern day mathematical logic, seemingly unknowingly. He remarks on the logic itself being void of content, yet then speaks on the informal use of a reductio argument which wouldn’t even apply to the actual *logic* mentioned before. He also claims that Sye’s argument is valid. Ok, in WHICH logic? He misses very basic understandings, such as the fact that logic isn’t concerned with soundness outside of tautological expressions, because logic itself cannot determine the truth of the premises outside of this. ~P->(P->Q) /:. (~P^P)->Q [Exportation] He seems to be oblivious to this^ In any video of him speaking on logic, he’s demonstrating that he clearly has never studied the subject. On the subject of logic, Matt is a conduit for misinformation.
This sort of stuff should be taught in schools. It's fundemental yet is left till later if at all. The route to something this important should not be "go find it on the net".
What happened to Iron Chariots Wiki? For me was the best source for learning responses to apologetics and theists in general. But months ago, it disappeared!
what I learned from discussing with theists ? Always ask them to demonstrate premise 1 : most of the time, they can't. most of the time, it is where they try to hide their trick. most of the time, it's an unwarranted assertion.
I strongly dislike when someone says, we can't know what is true because or senses are imperfect. They are PERFECT ENOUGH for a range of environment conditions and changes we accommodated for living in. In the range where the (human) animal evolved, it deciphered signals GOOD ENOUGH to make right choices (be that conscious or unconscious reactions). We really find faults in our senses in rather odd special conditions. And we find our senses are not functional enough to discern stuff we human animals didn't evolve to sense, didn't need to sense, we came to what we are without them, that data just fell to the side. For what we want to know and can't with our biological apparatus, we invent mechanisms which sense that data and translate it into what we can take in. And they also do that imperfectly, but better than we do, either good enough to fulfill their function or better than good enough. With all this, our internal and external machinery, we predict, and predictions come true (I mean, falsifiable predictions, of course) with better and better precision. If they don't, we calibrate. I mean, if we manage to do something in our life, we can presume that the data we receive is not bad. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to breathe, or walk, or communicate anything. We just to have to assess the precision of how "not bad" not bad is, and to correct for that....
i dont agree as that has cost millions of human lives, our senses have limits, a great example is adding a smell to natural gas so that we can detect it if it leaks .
@@hynekhasala8137 but you can't disagree with what I said, if that's your issue. Natural gas not having a smell is a special situation for which we didn't need to evolve. Or we evolved within a special situation where that wasn't the problem we dealt with - it's the same idea. It stays true that our senses give us a good enough report of environment, when we deal with what is close enough to "natural" environment.
@@hynekhasala8137, things like natural gas and radiation (we cannot detect by natural senses) doesn't matter in selection of traits. Ìt only matters that they are good enough too increase our fitness.
The idea of "perfect" senses is a nonsensical concept. To say our senses are imperfect is to compare our current capabilities to some capability that doesn't exist, and I really don't see the point in doing that. What's the use in inventing a standard to judge something when it is better understood by assessing how it already operates under realistic conditions? Are the senses of trees imperfect because they can't hear what you're saying at any given point in time? I don't get how some people would think the notion of a tree having "imperfect" senses in this situation is absurd while simultaneously putting humans under similar circumstances all the time. It's because the notion of "perfection" doesn't make sense. It is worth acknowledging, however, that we don't know how much we can't do. Perhaps there is some other way of processing things that were are incapable of doing that would give us a more functional understanding of the universe, and in THAT sense, we don't know how much we don't know, so there's no use in pretending that we have a comprehensive understanding, or assuming that we even can have such a thing. Yes, let's push as far as we can go, but without assuming that whatever we achieve or whatever we have is all there is to achieve or all there is to obtain.
@David Anewman How does DNA prove there is a god? Does it also prove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters? "If you cannot disprove it, it is most likely true." this has to be one of the most... well if you believe that I have no idea how you deal with day to day life or you are trolling. What you just said can easily be turned around as if you cannot disprove evolution, it is most likely true. That's the whole point behind verifiable and falsifiable.
The question of can we know truth... I have psychosis, so that question goes right out the window for me because i see, hear and feel things that nobody else does which makes being able to tell what is real or what is truth incredibly difficult. In my case i dont think truth is knowable other than the world exists and i exist in the world.
MrStripeyDog I’m not aware that Matt is a vegan but that’s an interesting idea. I’d support any book he would write. I think a book about morality or presuppositions would be interesting.
why making a argument? it is a linguistic phenomenon: something has to be transported, speech, written or the other way, is a medium, a transfer of a standing, making your stand before another. that way you bring people to understand and agree. what is understanding? that is you - being able to explain something to yourself. you telling yourself a reason, is "knowing" why you do it. this reason being wrong is still explaining it to you, like you were sure you had to turn left next possibility, but you went all wrong n end up not where you planed, but always told yourself doing right, since mistakes never feel like it when you make them. ug.. logically.
Hey, I'm not sure what the best way to reach you would be. I would be honored to be able to support your atheist debates project: other than financially, however, as I cannot afford to do so. In any case, I'm uploading a long (regrettably so) video explanation of how I might support the project in an alternative manner. If you are interested in this rather vague offer (lol), I would be very grateful for your consideration of it. I'm hesitant to leave a link to the video here...if you may, however, please let me know the best way to connect you with it, and I would be very happy to do so. With warm regards, Paul Chambers
Ive actually argued for this many times. Just because something is true doesnt mean its reasonable to accept as true. People have such a hard time with this sometimes.
the moral debate can also be cut-short simply by saying that what we consider moral-acts are the-existing thing not to debate, which would-be a possible god behind it.
A syllogism actually offers no new information. But valid logical structures can lead us through complex reasoning that is not clear on its face. The truth of premises goes to soundness, not validity. In other words one might offer a valid argument that has no bearing on anything. For example, The Kalam cosmological argument is valid (short of the jump to a theist god), but it is not sound for many reasons.
You are not "just intelligent". Im "just intelligent", I hope. You are one of those true geniuses who dont really understand or grasp just how intelligent you are. You dont just inspire people, you inspire people to "actually go out and learn". While we watch a kung fu movie as kids and come out doing kicks and punches for the next two hours, we generally dont enlist in our local kung fu class. But you inspire people not the level of inspiration, but action. People actually get more out of what you give than what you actually give. Thats how useful your videos, lectures, and debates are.
I wish my logic professor had explained it this way. I couldn't wrap my head around the abstraction and validity of structure separate from the 'truth' of content (also, I'm bad at maths).
i wanna bring the term "plausibility": that is what all nonsense relies on. it sounds plausible, therefore you can spare the closer analysis. but that is the whole trick: building some inherent-plausibility, which isn't a indicator for things correct, but the minimum requirement for not being peotry or gibberish.
Yesterday I had a discussion with someone online about the validation of game addiction by the WHO. Many experts have warned that this validation is not substantiated by research and that there is no concensus on gaming being addictive. The guy argued that it does exist, else the WHO wouldn't validate it. I directly asked him if he knows how the scientific method works. He claimed he knew it perfectly, but I had my doubts as I'm a scientist myself. So, my next question was: if there is no concensus, what is the most rational position one could take about the existence of game addiction? He replied and I quote 'There is no rational position in the scientific method'. Right there, he exposed himself imo. So, I explained some logic principles to him. His answer was baffling. 'Oh, now you start about logic; what does that have to do with it?'. He then said he didn't believe I was a scientist. For me, the conversation was over. This is just 1 example out of many discussions where I notice that most people don't understand or are ignorant of the logical principles, and don't understand or know they are the foundation of reasoning. Also in schools (not universities), children are fed information, without teachers first teaching them the basics of logic and reasoning. It baffles me.
if you can name it, the phenomenin exists. the *lie* is: that you contribute the wrong to what you name. n that is the whole trick, sometimes what you name even describes completely unreal, because you named a pixie or a kobold. aka: you can name fiction, but then it exists as-such. like spok exists.
Needs intro music. You live in Austin dude. NO EXCUSES for not having a catchy jingle, because you couldn't throw a cell phone without hitting a musician. :D (Edit: you could ask for a "donation" of a jingle, just sayin)
Is there a basic textbook distillation of the fundamentals of logic and argument that you might recommend? Preferably including the enumeration of the techniques, some sort of systematic approach.
Logic is awesome, but it is really hard to use premises which are true... It works rather well for mathematics though even a subset of numbers is called real, they are all abstract concepts. In biology it is much much more complicated, we cannot properly define what is a species or what is a life itself, kind of hard to reason when your premises are not always true.
I think terms like species are becoming obsolete. Breeding population is more accurate. I think people have pretty good definitions of life based on what the purpose of the word is used for.
@@Uhlbelk I think breeding population is even tougher to define than species because of migration. As for the life there is no consensus what life is. No one can tell you when organism stops being alive and it is even more complicated with cells. And lots of organisms clearly seem alive but do not meet all the criteria and viruses are bit in the grey zone.
I run into the topic of "Why are you forcing others to believe? Why can't you leave religious people alone? Why do you have to be an ass?" When having online discussions. It's quite annoying. And it's usually followed up with "We have freedom of speech. We have the right to express our opinion." And I just can't help but face palm. Every. Single. Time. I'm expressing my opinion, you're expressing yours. Nobody is being forced into anything. No ones speech is impeded, restricted, prevented. It's all good. Let's just have a discussion ... or not ... It's your choice.
So what about the fallacy of equivocation? I'm very knew to logic and reasoning but insofar as I'm aware, both the premises are true, the syllogism is present and the structure is true but the conclusion is still false. Classic example: P1: All feathers are light. P2: Light is the opposite of dark. Q: Therefore, there are no dark feathers.
A fallacy is how a syllogism is wrong. This is an invalid syllogism as demonstrated by using logical laws of identity and inserting them into the syllogism. So let light (weight) = A, light (color) = B P1: All feathers are A P2: B is the opposite of dark. Q: Therefore, there are no dark feathers.
I disagree with the part that logic is a discovery. Logic is by definition how the universe functions. The logic of transitivity for example (in cases where it applies). If i am older than Matt, and he is older than his wife, -then I am older then his wife. This is by definition how the universe is. It is intrinsic in reality, what we “discover” is how to express it. And thats the language of mathematics, although math itself isn’t a “discovery”, only how we express it is.
logic is an over simplified mechanism to make relations between concepts. It also matters that these coincide with reality, but it's not always the case, since it's impractical in some instances, even though possible in theory. When you say "A dog has 4 legs" and you enconter one with a different number of legs your words have to encapsulate those exceptions so they are no longer incongruences. But then every postulate you assert requires that you have knowledge of all possible aspects of your subjects used in the premisses. But we most likely never know everything there is to know about anything. This brings the problem that some statments may hold contradictions we are yet to realize. We had to find a dog with more (or less) legs and classify it as a dog to make claims according to that fact. But if we say that all dogs have claws and we find one that doesn't grow them would that not make it a dog? Classification matters. But this can skew how we reach conclusions based onaxioms that may not yet carry all the specifics to make claims. The other problem may lie with creating a new word for every "dog" that has divergent characteristics from the previous meaning coined within the word "dog". This would create an endless amount of new words and definitions, perhaps one for each indivdual and therefore unique dog. And this is an impractical use of logic, it would be too puritanical to be useful as a tool in daily life. Logic is a system built in accordance with the patterns of reality that most often repeat themselves. But this is simpified to be practically usable. Some patterns, at least in part we mean, may be the same, if we are rigorous nothing is ever the same. Different atoms, different circumstance, different outcome, which may be irrelevant to the logic leaps done, except we don't always know that until we collide with reasons that may make the distinctions relevant to the diferentiation of concepts (or redifinition of concepts). Beware that concepts are pointers to reality not reality per se. Of course they are real but just has ideas or marks on papers. An elephant in your mind doesn't details you can empirically uncover unless you invent them. That is where concepts part with reality.
Jesse Stewart exactly what i wanted to say, and although we invent the “language” of math, math itself isnt invented. And yeah my comment was a mess, i did contradict myself, i argued with two definitions of “discover” 1: discover meaning inventing in a sense 2: discover, already exist and you found it I guess the second is the only definition and i was just confused at that moment. It felt as if it was different in the video
to elaborate: there must be something that gets explained... before the explaination. i know, yeah, ts qualia in philo, but don't say that's no-thing, since it got explained some-later.
The street is wet. Rain causes the street to be wet. Therefore it is raining. Looks outside and it is not raining. Many things can cause the street to be wet. Explain please.
The example he gives in this video is "If it is raining, the street will be wet" not "If the street is wet, it is raining". They are very different propositions.
compare the biblical miracles with "simple natural" stuff like black holes. whats a burning bush sopposed to mean in the day of electric christmas lights? sparing 3 cent energy, is that the miracle?
Not topical - but damn Matt is looking healthier in these recent videos. Will have to listen to this later, but my position is that logic is merely an expression of common patterns, and that deduction to positive ends is only relevant insofar as the conclusion may be effectively acted upon, and only of value when this is the case. If the conclusion is 'there is a god' - then without being presented a god, it's just sophistry.
just sophistry? and sophistry is just entertainment? or a mental training. i want to say: something can be very-real, simply by it being talked about, thoughts are not "nothing". actually the reason we so damn busy talking here: if no gods exist, they were the most world-shaping thing "nonexistent" ever. don't dismiss some that doesn't lie on streets like stones n garbage. know hanzel n gretyl? then you know what they did, what happened then and who dies and who lives. is that just carbon or just transistors or holes in a laserdisk? no, ts fokken hanzel n gretyl.
It is important to remember that reason is not a good thing, only a tool that allows us to act when logic cannot be applied. If someone runs at you with a knife, you would be reasonable to pay attention. This is true, because you fill in the unknowns with facts that lead you to take the most precautious actions, or perhaps the most statistically likely. Without reason, we may not jump out of the way to avoid a car. With reason, we attempt to predict the drive, without facts, and decide if they will stop. So things that are reasonable are only logical by accident. In order for them to be anything else requires the supernatural and the belief in facts that have no evidence. And we know where that gets us :p
logics are system-inherent, a statement can be logical, but if it is necessary or even smart or polite demanding logic might be not the most-logical approach.
some just don't want you to train handstand in their kitchen, although there is enough place n time all are bored n it somewhat healthy for them metabolisms - just no-do a freaken handstand it looks stupid go home if you must.
The idea that it could be reasonable to believe in a lie is very controversial and provocative. We know that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, but If reason is not a reliable pathway to truth either, then what is the point of being reasonable?
A) all carpenters work with wood. B) Bill works with wood. C) BILL is a carpenter. Structure is valid & sound but conclusion is false. Bill works in a lumber yard. Matt says it's not reasonable to believe in what is true. A) truth is not subject to belief. B) God is not subject to belief. C) therefore God is truth. In logic, an argument can be invalid even if its conclusion is true, and an argument can be valid even if its conclusion is false. It’s a confusing concept, and people are easily fooled when an argument’s validity and believability don’t match up, especially in the case of invalid arguments with conclusions that are believable. Psychological scientists call this phenomenon belief bias. For example, consider this argument. All psychological scientists conduct empirical research. William James conducts empirical research. Therefore, William James is a psychological scientist. All of the premises are true, and so is the conclusion, but it’s not a valid argument. All psychological scientists do conduct empirical research, and so does William James, but that’s not what tells us that James is a psychological scientist. Some people who conduct empirical research - Rosalind Franklin, for example - aren’t psychological scientists at
I just read an article on ars technica titled "Political radicals don't evaluate there own errors about anything" thought of Mat. No I don't think Mat is a radical. I thought he would find it interesting.
I think there is another way to look at the problem with that first premise. For example: Is it reasonable to believe all women who claim they have been raped? Saying it is reasonable to believe that which is true obscures the fact that the actual premise is: If a statement is true, then it is reasonable to believe it. If that premise were true, then it must also be true that: If a statement is false, then it is not reasonable to believe it. There are obviously lots of statements that are reasonable to believe even though those statements are false. Not every mistake is a result of the failure of reason, sometimes you are given bad evidence, sometimes people lie.
reasonable to-believe still doesn't mean being on the right track. it is reasonable to believe islam in a muslim country. very-directly: since most women dont get raped, it is unreasonable to believe every woman claimin it being-so. but--- of-course every case has to be viewed seperated, if your goal is knowing the truth, not believe the reasonable.
see, this might be some: i will say something unscientific and slightly-esoteric, i still live by (it is ok and i am allowed n it is on sin-level of havin a talisman): i think the body should now and then use itself, i mean go onto the ressources, not just stayn, stagnating, fluctuating - being in-expectation before the getting. i imagine it keeps young, i look.. well all say i look young for 33.
also: wearing watches makes old. me-theory, better get the-rid. uh, na, it is more like a certain mindset, of always-what-when-where goes with that n that is-- well bein old.
meaning is something attributed by living things, so it is a fallacy to put a concept onto what the concept derived from in the first place. uh.. meaning of life: done. whats next? whats the meaning of no life? hrm. tricky.
@@Uhlbelk all philosophy is connected, I would say in this case through the morality branch, but more importantly, he promised. But then VeganGains was a dolt on The Atheist Experience, and the topic was dropped completely. I was looking forward to hearing his thoughts on the matter.
seriously people seem thinking that what they believe is of any consequence on what is true and what not, you can believe all day long, its fact or not aside from that, so stop annoying others if not even truth cares.
I have a question... what does the Egyptian government say when it comes to the Bible? Like...their historians and shit? I mean, do they too say that their people enslaved the Jews, and the story of the plague and “what not”??? The whole “Let my people go” stuff...
Thank you Matt. This video and entire series has greatly helped me become a better thinker.
Please make a logic 101 series
After yesterday's FIVE HOUR discussion with a Christian relative....I guarantee you that this is exactly what I'm working on next.
lol@@SansDeity Less than one minutes clips for Instagram! Very difficult to get messages across on that site unless it's a meme. I bet it would crack a few heads open. EVERYONE on my list watches my clips, even theists.
I've tried teaching logic but people do not seem to be that into it, sadly. However, some are willing to learn it on there own - and that is good.
Yes please. :-)
IF THEN AND OR NOT NAND NOR XOR all there is to know
Excellent description and explanation as usual Matt!
Love your vids Matt, keep them coming! Also, you’re looking very healthy these days. Good for you!
Hey matt! I appreciate this so much! Where and what are some of your favorite resources? I would love to check them out if you are able to throw them up? I'm ready to start logicing all over the place! Thanks for all you do!
"It is reasonable to believe that which is true." No. It is reasonable to believe that which is demonstrably true.
@Jim Thinnsen Leaving aside the Gish Gallop, when you try and insult science by comparing it to faith, you actually don't make faith look any better.
At least those of us who believe in science acknowledge that there are gaps in what we know, rather than papering them over with "a god did it" and pretending that that solves everything.
@Jim Thinnsen You are ignoring the fact that evolution is true.
I've seen this strange statement before "when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE", which puts us, in our limited capacity somehow as the measurement for what is possible. Our technology is limited, within my grandma's lifetime the very basics such as electricity, cars, planes, computers, phones (let alone mobile devices) all came into existence. That's one lifetime. Why would you hold us up as evidence that if we can't do something now that it can never be done?If your argument is which option needs less faith between "natural causes created the universe" or "an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable super being from another dimension created the universe, from nothing, by thought alone" then yes, natural causes requires a lot less faith.
Science itself depends of unprovable assumptions. Besides, can you demonstrate that you can trust your own mind and perception of reality - without using your brain (reasoning in a vicious circle) in order to do so? How about this: Are you your brain or do you use your brain to think?
@@werelemur1138
Wow, you left the premises a bit prematurely... Gish Gallop nonsense is just what folks who can't answer the questions say as they look for the door... Also, in reference to science, see my comment to Randy Clark... I wonder what happened to the 5 fools who thumbed you up...
Matt, you do a great job of explaining epistemology without engaging in word salad. Thank you.
Love your videos, Matt.
Don’t know how to get this health info to you so I apologize for being off topic. Please look into mild weight lifting to increase the muscle mass we lose as we get older. (Just hand weights, pushups, etc.) It really helps type 2 diabetics to regulate their sugar to have more muscle as well as lessen the chance of many injuries.
We need you hale and hearty to continue your good work!
You could email him! Maybe through the atheist experience email, or I'm sure he has another linked somewhere
Who thumbs down lessons of logic and reason? What a bunch of goofs. Love this series. Thanku 👍😊
Oh thank... god?
It’s not just me. This is one of my biggest pet peeves, when a person says “logic” when they mean “reason.”
Trolltician I'm not doing it at the moment. Is it therefore reasonable to conclude that I am not atheist?
@@thewhat531 It took me a minute because im stupid but damn that actually makes sense... I guess all athiests dont confuse logic with reasoning though some may do it.
Love you Matt! You and all the people who've helped me stop thinking my gay/atheist/buddhist friends will burn in hell. Seriously I've become such a better thinker/person/friend since abandoning faith.
Better? May I ask who or what is the source of this standard of yours? Can it be tested scientifically? How much does it weigh? Why do you believe everything magically popped into existence out of nothing? If there isn't anything wrong with being gay, atheist, or Buddhist, then what is wrong with be Muslim, Christian, a Nazi, or a member of the KKK? Yes, it is easier to skip along the primrose path having jettisoned your critical thinking and just chosen to go, "Whatever!" Such mindlessness! But then, ignorance is often bliss... at least for a while.
@@jacoblee5796
Yeah, Diogenes isn't coming back, is he? Probably not...
*"WHAT STANDARD ARE YOU REFERRING TO?"*
Why should I tip my hand before my question is answered? What standard are you using?
*"I DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING, I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW."*
But given what we do know, what are the options regarding origins?
*"HOWEVER ITS THEISTS WHO BELIEVE EVERYTHING MAGICAL CAME INTO EXISTENCE."*
Can you quote one single person who actually says that? I'm sorry, but given the context, the terms 'magic' and 'supernatural' are simply not synonymous. However, this is an error that scoffers seem to revel in making. It is all too common.
*"NO I DO NOT THINK ITS WRONG..."*
Is there anything that is, in reality, objectively wrong?
*"I DO HOWEVER THINK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALOUD TO VOTE."*
Uhm... Okay... But then, ALL men are religious, so...
*"BUT YES BEING NAZI OR KKK MEMBER IS WRONG."*
So you do believe that human life somehow has intrinsic value and that objective moral values and duties exist then?
*"I DON'T NEED A TRANSCENDENT BEING TO KNOW THIS."*
Actually, you don't need to _believe_ in a transcendent being to know that; you do however need a Transcendent being for what you claim to know to actually be true.
*"THE FACT THAT YOU DO IS EXACTLY WHY I FEEL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE!"*
First of all your claim is a false one, as I just explained above.
*"ALSO ALMOST ALL NAZI'S AND KKK MEMBERS ARE/WHERE CHRISTIAN!"*
Sure they were! Believe what you wish! Tell yourself any kind of fairy-tale you like... But I'm gonna need to see some actual evidence. _Do you have any?_ Also, you did not answer the question.
*"SO I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT YOUR POINT IS THERE!?"*
Wasn't making a point, I was asking a question. The question still stands. YOU assume there is a standard, so may I ask WHO or WHAT is the source of whatever standard that YOU are appealing to?
@@jacoblee5796
Do you mind if I do this tediously and go line-by-line again? It irritates some folks, but I want to keep it straight and not miss anything. And I think the subject is extremely important.
*"I HONESTLY DON'T GET THIS STANDARD QUESTION YOU KEEP ASKING!?"*
Well, you're acting like some things really are wrong - for everybody - regardless of what they might personally think about it. And that would require that morality is not just a matter of personal opinion, right? And even if it were just ones personal feelings or preferences, then why should we think that it ever applies to someone else? But you not only believe that a moral standard applies to us right now, but that it also applied to Nazis in the early 20th century and members of the KKK despite their personal feelings. _Correct?_ So are you not imposing a standard on them? What is the rational basis for this universal and timeless moral standard you're imposing on all men? _Fair question, isn't it?_
*"DO YOU NEED SOME SORT OF STANDARD ON WHICH TO BASE YOUR MORALS?"*
If you want to be rational and consistent in your thinking, absolutely! Lots of folks just never consciously ask themselves that fundamental question: Why do I believe that some human actions are objectively wrong? _Just think about that a bit and then try to come up with a good naturalistic explanation._ What is your best explanation?
*"YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG USING YOUR OWN BRAIN AND SENSE OF WELL BEING?"*
But that's just it. People really do have this general sense of right and wrong - and believe it applies across cultures and time periods! But how could that be? How do we explain that in a way that explains that sense of _oughtness_ we all have? Well being ≠ moral absolute. Preferences ≠ oughtness.
*"DO YOU NOT HAVE EMPATHY FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN?"*
But that raises a number of questions for me: 1. Are you saying that men _ought_ to feel empathy? (See how the moral absolute gets smuggled in there?) 2. How much empathy is enough? 3. If I don't feel empathy, is nothing wrong 'for me'? 4. Can I not recognize or do the right thing if I don't feel any empathy at all?
*"AND STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE A POINT BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY ARE!"*
You know what, I'll grant you that. I always hope that the questions will lead to conversation, but the questions are so rarely answered. So my point would be the same question: Does he have a rational basis-a naturalistic explanation by which he determines what is good and bad, right and wrong, that is consistent with his own worldview-or is it just an assumption or perhaps based upon emotions or simply what he was told growing up-or could it be something he's never really thought about before? Obviously, he doesn't want to discuss it. But it seems like you do. Hopefully this comment will help us move the discussion forward.
*"COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND EXPLAIN THIS STATEMENT? THIS MIGHT BE THE DUMBEST F'N THING I'VE EVER READ! THANKS IN ADVANCE!"*
Hold on there cowboy! Let's keep the emotions in check. Let me try this again. You really do believe that some things really are wrong-no matter who you are, what you believe, how you personally feel, or even what time period you lived in, correct? Let's just wade in here: WHY do you believe that?
@@jacoblee5796
You're not answering my questions and until you do we really can't progress here. Besides that, it is clear that YOU believe in objective moral values and duties even though you say you don't (you just proved this again - slavery?) and that you are unable to keep your emotions in check and be respectful. If you actually asked questions instead of pretending to know what you clearly don't, then this might be a productive exchange. So, how about actually answering a few of the questions from my previous post and we'll go from there?
@@jacoblee5796
So you're not going to answer any of the questions I asked but demand that I answer you? Okay, we're done here. And no, you didn't answer the question you claim to have answered. At least, not in a rational or consistent manner. You're either deluded or simply being immoral and lying. You also clearly believe in what you claim you don't believe (objective moral values and duties - you demonstrated this yet again in your latest comment), so again, you're either deluded or lying. As for 'magic sky daddy', well, you'll have to define that term for me because I don't believe in anything that could properly be defined as any such thing. You're strawmanning, which means you are lying about my claims and my position. You're a liar who clearly doesn't have the stones to continue this conversation honestly. Well if you don't wish to continue, then stop pretending that you do! (Which of course is another example of lying.)
Matt, I find myself appreciating your logic videos differently but no less intensely than your ADP videos.
Why do we need more logic videos? Let me give you an analogy.
I like woodworking. And when I teach others on the process of woodworking, I find it essential to teach about the different tools (saws) needed to attain the different cuts. For instance, you need a 90 degrees cut? Use a chop saw. Want wood cut at 45 degrees? Use a miter saw. Your miter saws cut angles that chop saws won't cut. Here, within the miter family you even have ones with different capabilities and features: compound and bevels for those rare cuts like the ones found on crown moulding. You even have miters that slide for longer cuts.
What about an arch finish? If that's the case, forget your chop and miter saws, you need a scroll saw. Wood workers use scroll saws to create the arches and elliptical shapes found on decorative pieces. Most of the delicate, beautiful wood pieces found on ebay have been created by wood workers using a scroll saw. Those guys are artists.
All woodworkers have table saws, which are the go-to saws for most cuts. But what about re-sawing stock? Here, your table saw becomes useless as a tire iron. For re-sawing, you need a band saw. Want a large hole? Use a jig saw. Want to chop down a tree? Use a chain saw...etc
My point: even though all these saws have different purposes, they're all vital tools for effective wood working. And no one tool can replace the other.
Having said that, Matt, we greatly appreciate your ADP videos for helping us become effective thinkers. But by providing us with more logic videos, you'll be introducing us the tools needed to become even better thinkers. You have an audience that spans different education backgrounds and ages. Not all of us have been exposed to the tools needed to properly debate thiests. In my analogy above, some of us may be using chainsaws to carve out arches.
You're looking a lot healthier lately! Good to see buddy!
I thought the same thing. Maybe it's just better lightning or somesuch, but Matt does look well and good in this one. Stupid sexy atheist =)
"It is reasonable to believe that which is true." - That's an easy thing to overlook in the heat of the moment.
Matt, by chance did you do, or do you plan on doing a review of your debate with inspiring philosophy? If you’ve done so can you link it here? Please and thanks.
Two resources that helped me with understanding basic logic (mainly deductive, but also some inductive) is Kevin deLaplante youtube channel and a basic (very basic) computer program called Logic Cola by Harry Gensler.
@MrStripeyDog Is rejection of a flawed argument, based on reason according to you?
@MrStripeyDog , How is "I have not seen valid evidence for the existence of your proposed god" an ideology?
@MrStripeyDog Then you should be capable of articulating what that argument is...can you?
@MrStripeyDog "and you probably will see that atheism is not based on reason." I have watched countless debates and not once has that become apparent.
If you are seeing that, then there are psychological explanations for why you do.
MrStripeyDog Atheism existed long before the internet since ancient years (centuries before Christianity even). Atheism is not linked to the internet.
Happy Solstice, heathens
There is a 3rd option on the accepted premise/rejected conclusion: to reject logic.
So the options are:
1. Reject the premise.
2. Accept the conclusion.
3. Abandon logic for this case.
I have seen the third in practice, where someone accepted all the premises but rejected the conclusion. And still thought they were being rational in doing so.
My father taught Me to never believe anything. He told Me to place probabilities and adjust them as new data come along, evaluating those data by asking, "Does that explain what I see?" I have found this has helped Me in avoiding attachment to any given premise, and I think it would be awesome if everyOne approached things in this way. Thanks for the logical discussion!
Thank you! Because sometimes things in my brain seem logical but trying to express that in words is unreasonable.
Do you have a copy of the first time you went on community TV/AXP? And how bad was it?!
A 2014 video played straight after this
.. you've dropped some timber mate .. good for you :)
Gday mate , I was just wondering how to find out your tour schedule? I have looked you up for tours and it didn't seem to be to helpful . Although I am not the computer savvy . Would be great if you came back to Australia , maybe even Perth so I don't have to fly over east to see you , even though I would ... HAHAHAHAHAHAH Cheers.
When I say "that seems logical" (the most common case this would come up for me) I generally mean something like "that follows", which is indeed in reference to the logical validity of the warrant / enthymeme / second premise involved in getting from situation to response, which is more related to validity than soundness (because we're not questioning the truth of the first premise so I'm not asserting it). But I'm not using "logic" in the technical sense used in philosophy and I don't expect it to be taken that way. I don't consider philosophy to have as much ownership of common terminology as science or any social study, and it's something I largely opt out of. It definitely does not have exclusive ownership over the common word "logic".
"By that logic" and "by that reasoning" do indeed mean the same thing, and refer to the step from facts to conclusion, not the facts. What is in a syllogism obfuscatingly buried in the second premise but is more clearly abstracted as the warrant.
Get into the difference between hypothesis, theory, fact and so on. It's probably obvious but it's still handy to have it summarized to explain it to people who clearly don't understand what those words mean.
"...might be a problem for people who appreciate logic even more than I do."
Do these "people" even exist??? Haha thanks for another video I've been watching and learning from you for well over a decade. Thank you for spreading knowledge out to all those like me who are interested to truth and how go about concluding what is true.
Good video. However, I didn't catch what "The moon is made of green cheese" comment demonstrated about Reductio ad absurdum. Thanks.
The idea was:
"The moon is made of green cheese." is something I accept.
*Through some process of logic* I determine that this implies "There must be mice on the moon."
I do *not* accept there are mice on the moon. This a *contradiction*, so I must either reject the idea the moon is made of green cheese, or accept the idea there is mice on the moon.
In mathematical form:
A and ~B
A implies B
Therefore, B
Contradiction: B is true and ~B is true.
(~B refers to 'not B' or 'B is false')
Andrew Trout Your *proof* doesn’t make any sense. An indirect proof (reductio argument, in formal logic) seeks to prove a statement true by showing that assuming it’s negation will lead to a contradiction among the premises, which, by LeM will ensure that the original statement is derived.
1. P->Q /:.Q
2. P
3. ~Q [Assumed Premise]
4. ~P [Modus Tollens: 1,2]
5. P^~P [Conjunction: 2,4]
6. Q [Indirect Proof: 3-5]
Matt’s mentioning of this was nonsensical, as he was speaking on the informal use of the concept which regards content and is outside the scope of the *logic* he seemed to be addressing, however sloppily done along the way.
A reductio is generally a formal indirect proof
IE if you are looking for X you start with -Xabd from there derive Y * -Y
Your explanation of a reductio is more in line with informal reasoning which seems to be outside the scope of this video.
You may want to do a follow-up on informal reasoning and cogency
It is generally the case that when Matt speaks on logic, he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about. Your comment is the only one I’ve found where someone actually points out a glaring flaw.
1. P->Q /:. Q
2. P
3. ~Q [AP]
4. ~P [MT:1,3]
5. P^~P [Conj:2,4]
6. Q [IP:3-5]
This is a very basic thing to know regarding logic. Matt is all over the place. He focuses on categorical syllogisms as one would with syllogistic logic, yet *seems* to veer off into modern day mathematical logic, seemingly unknowingly. He remarks on the logic itself being void of content, yet then speaks on the informal use of a reductio argument which wouldn’t even apply to the actual *logic* mentioned before. He also claims that Sye’s argument is valid. Ok, in WHICH logic?
He misses very basic understandings, such as the fact that logic isn’t concerned with soundness outside of tautological expressions, because logic itself cannot determine the truth of the premises outside of this.
~P->(P->Q)
/:. (~P^P)->Q [Exportation]
He seems to be oblivious to this^
In any video of him speaking on logic, he’s demonstrating that he clearly has never studied the subject. On the subject of logic, Matt is a conduit for misinformation.
This sort of stuff should be taught in schools. It's fundemental yet is left till later if at all. The route to something this important should not be "go find it on the net".
What happened to Iron Chariots Wiki? For me was the best source for learning responses to apologetics and theists in general. But months ago, it disappeared!
This is really awesome
what I learned from discussing with theists ? Always ask them to demonstrate premise 1 : most of the time, they can't. most of the time, it is where they try to hide their trick. most of the time, it's an unwarranted assertion.
*This video should be made into a flow chart matt.* LOL
I strongly dislike when someone says, we can't know what is true because or senses are imperfect. They are PERFECT ENOUGH for a range of environment conditions and changes we accommodated for living in.
In the range where the (human) animal evolved, it deciphered signals GOOD ENOUGH to make right choices (be that conscious or unconscious reactions). We really find faults in our senses in rather odd special conditions. And we find our senses are not functional enough to discern stuff we human animals didn't evolve to sense, didn't need to sense, we came to what we are without them, that data just fell to the side.
For what we want to know and can't with our biological apparatus, we invent mechanisms which sense that data and translate it into what we can take in. And they also do that imperfectly, but better than we do, either good enough to fulfill their function or better than good enough.
With all this, our internal and external machinery, we predict, and predictions come true (I mean, falsifiable predictions, of course) with better and better precision. If they don't, we calibrate.
I mean, if we manage to do something in our life, we can presume that the data we receive is not bad. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to breathe, or walk, or communicate anything. We just to have to assess the precision of how "not bad" not bad is, and to correct for that....
i dont agree as that has cost millions of human lives, our senses have limits, a great example is adding a smell to natural gas so that we can detect it if it leaks .
@@hynekhasala8137 but you can't disagree with what I said, if that's your issue. Natural gas not having a smell is a special situation for which we didn't need to evolve. Or we evolved within a special situation where that wasn't the problem we dealt with - it's the same idea.
It stays true that our senses give us a good enough report of environment, when we deal with what is close enough to "natural" environment.
@@hynekhasala8137, things like natural gas and radiation (we cannot detect by natural senses) doesn't matter in selection of traits. Ìt only matters that they are good enough too increase our fitness.
The idea of "perfect" senses is a nonsensical concept. To say our senses are imperfect is to compare our current capabilities to some capability that doesn't exist, and I really don't see the point in doing that. What's the use in inventing a standard to judge something when it is better understood by assessing how it already operates under realistic conditions? Are the senses of trees imperfect because they can't hear what you're saying at any given point in time? I don't get how some people would think the notion of a tree having "imperfect" senses in this situation is absurd while simultaneously putting humans under similar circumstances all the time. It's because the notion of "perfection" doesn't make sense.
It is worth acknowledging, however, that we don't know how much we can't do. Perhaps there is some other way of processing things that were are incapable of doing that would give us a more functional understanding of the universe, and in THAT sense, we don't know how much we don't know, so there's no use in pretending that we have a comprehensive understanding, or assuming that we even can have such a thing. Yes, let's push as far as we can go, but without assuming that whatever we achieve or whatever we have is all there is to achieve or all there is to obtain.
@David Anewman How does DNA prove there is a god? Does it also prove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters? "If you cannot disprove it, it is most likely true." this has to be one of the most... well if you believe that I have no idea how you deal with day to day life or you are trolling. What you just said can easily be turned around as if you cannot disprove evolution, it is most likely true. That's the whole point behind verifiable and falsifiable.
The question of can we know truth... I have psychosis, so that question goes right out the window for me because i see, hear and feel things that nobody else does which makes being able to tell what is real or what is truth incredibly difficult. In my case i dont think truth is knowable other than the world exists and i exist in the world.
When is Matt planning to come out with his book?
He has recently stated that the book in postponed indefinitely. Very sad!
Thanks for the update!
Linus Wallin do you know why?
MrStripeyDog I’m not aware that Matt is a vegan but that’s an interesting idea. I’d support any book he would write. I think a book about morality or presuppositions would be interesting.
MrStripeyDog expertise on morality? Not sure on that one. I think Matt has a good take on it and he is good at explaining things
Where you in the audience of Wheel of Fortune recently?
include a link to thevideos you speak?:)
why making a argument? it is a linguistic phenomenon: something has to be transported, speech, written or the other way, is a medium, a transfer of a standing, making your stand before another. that way you bring people to understand and agree. what is understanding? that is you - being able to explain something to yourself. you telling yourself a reason, is "knowing" why you do it. this reason being wrong is still explaining it to you, like you were sure you had to turn left next possibility, but you went all wrong n end up not where you planed, but always told yourself doing right, since mistakes never feel like it when you make them. ug.. logically.
that takes some: claiming existance of things beyond space and time, when nowhere at no time ordinarily means- not existing.
Hey, I'm not sure what the best way to reach you would be. I would be honored to be able to support your atheist debates project: other than financially, however, as I cannot afford to do so.
In any case, I'm uploading a long (regrettably so) video explanation of how I might support the project in an alternative manner. If you are interested in this rather vague offer (lol), I would be very grateful for your consideration of it. I'm hesitant to leave a link to the video here...if you may, however, please let me know the best way to connect you with it, and I would be very happy to do so.
With warm regards,
Paul Chambers
I never get over the intros 😂
So where did matter come from for the big bang?
Matt please do a video on Morgue and hyperianism I am so Interested in what you think of this lol
When will IronChariots work again?
Try religions.wiki it's an active fork of the ironchariots wiki.
Thanks for the updates! I didn't even know it was down.
Anybody know why?
You could also try archive.org
web.archive.org/web/20171114202231/wiki.ironchariots.org:80/index.php?title=Main_Page
Iron Chariots is yet to be exploited in the media.
@@dnjj1845 ??
Ive actually argued for this many times. Just because something is true doesnt mean its reasonable to accept as true.
People have such a hard time with this sometimes.
totally. If you believed black holes existed 400 years ago because your granny said she saw them in a dream, you were both correct AND irrational.
Can someone link to the debate Matt talked about during this? I'd be interested to watch it.
ua-cam.com/video/OL8LREmbDi0/v-deo.html
Just remember you asked for it...lol
Watching that again would be about the same as ghost pepper enema.
the moral debate can also be cut-short simply by saying that what we consider moral-acts are the-existing thing not to debate, which would-be a possible god behind it.
A syllogism actually offers no new information. But valid logical structures can lead us through complex reasoning that is not clear on its face. The truth of premises goes to soundness, not validity. In other words one might offer a valid argument that has no bearing on anything. For example, The Kalam cosmological argument is valid (short of the jump to a theist god), but it is not sound for many reasons.
You are not "just intelligent". Im "just intelligent", I hope. You are one of those true geniuses who dont really understand or grasp just how intelligent you are. You dont just inspire people, you inspire people to "actually go out and learn". While we watch a kung fu movie as kids and come out doing kicks and punches for the next two hours, we generally dont enlist in our local kung fu class. But you inspire people not the level of inspiration, but action. People actually get more out of what you give than what you actually give. Thats how useful your videos, lectures, and debates are.
I wish my logic professor had explained it this way. I couldn't wrap my head around the abstraction and validity of structure separate from the 'truth' of content (also, I'm bad at maths).
much easier to learn and understand and apply symbology after. Symbology really help identifying when you are doing it wrong though.
i wanna bring the term "plausibility": that is what all nonsense relies on. it sounds plausible, therefore you can spare the closer analysis. but that is the whole trick: building some inherent-plausibility, which isn't a indicator for things correct, but the minimum requirement for not being peotry or gibberish.
Adam Rosenfeld is a great UA-cam resource for classes on logic.
And here I thought I was logical. Good grief this is a lot harder than it seems. What happens you apply this to abstract concepts like good and evil?
Yesterday I had a discussion with someone online about the validation of game addiction by the WHO. Many experts have warned that this validation is not substantiated by research and that there is no concensus on gaming being addictive. The guy argued that it does exist, else the WHO wouldn't validate it. I directly asked him if he knows how the scientific method works. He claimed he knew it perfectly, but I had my doubts as I'm a scientist myself. So, my next question was: if there is no concensus, what is the most rational position one could take about the existence of game addiction? He replied and I quote 'There is no rational position in the scientific method'. Right there, he exposed himself imo. So, I explained some logic principles to him. His answer was baffling. 'Oh, now you start about logic; what does that have to do with it?'. He then said he didn't believe I was a scientist. For me, the conversation was over.
This is just 1 example out of many discussions where I notice that most people don't understand or are ignorant of the logical principles, and don't understand or know they are the foundation of reasoning.
Also in schools (not universities), children are fed information, without teachers first teaching them the basics of logic and reasoning. It baffles me.
if you can name it, the phenomenin exists. the *lie* is: that you contribute the wrong to what you name. n that is the whole trick, sometimes what you name even describes completely unreal, because you named a pixie or a kobold. aka: you can name fiction, but then it exists as-such. like spok exists.
@@vladtepes7539 No it doesn't. You can't define something into existence. You have to prove the existence first.
Needs intro music. You live in Austin dude. NO EXCUSES for not having a catchy jingle, because you couldn't throw a cell phone without hitting a musician. :D (Edit: you could ask for a "donation" of a jingle, just sayin)
Is there a basic textbook distillation of the fundamentals of logic and argument that you might recommend? Preferably including the enumeration of the techniques, some sort of systematic approach.
Volker Halbach's The Logic Manual. Used in universities and other learning grounds all around.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
MrStripeyDog that’s funny, coming from people who want to believe iron age books. LoL
MrStripeyDog so killing animals to appease a god is logical. LoL. Oy.
Thanks, the logical fallacies one sounds especially like something I'd be interested in.
Logic is awesome, but it is really hard to use premises which are true... It works rather well for mathematics though even a subset of numbers is called real, they are all abstract concepts. In biology it is much much more complicated, we cannot properly define what is a species or what is a life itself, kind of hard to reason when your premises are not always true.
I think terms like species are becoming obsolete. Breeding population is more accurate. I think people have pretty good definitions of life based on what the purpose of the word is used for.
@@Uhlbelk I think breeding population is even tougher to define than species because of migration. As for the life there is no consensus what life is. No one can tell you when organism stops being alive and it is even more complicated with cells. And lots of organisms clearly seem alive but do not meet all the criteria and viruses are bit in the grey zone.
I run into the topic of "Why are you forcing others to believe? Why can't you leave religious people alone? Why do you have to be an ass?" When having online discussions.
It's quite annoying. And it's usually followed up with "We have freedom of speech. We have the right to express our opinion." And I just can't help but face palm. Every. Single. Time.
I'm expressing my opinion, you're expressing yours. Nobody is being forced into anything. No ones speech is impeded, restricted, prevented. It's all good. Let's just have a discussion ... or not ... It's your choice.
Let's have a discussion on my terms:p
Matt, we want your book.
Is Matt still married?
12:15: you said "accept" - you meant "reject"
You've got me Logicked.
i think, therefore i am. it rains, therefore it is, whatever that means.
They can also plug their ears and run away. Which is the most common outcome, to be honest. And then maybe a year down the line they soften to it.
So what about the fallacy of equivocation? I'm very knew to logic and reasoning but insofar as I'm aware, both the premises are true, the syllogism is present and the structure is true but the conclusion is still false.
Classic example:
P1: All feathers are light.
P2: Light is the opposite of dark.
Q: Therefore, there are no dark feathers.
A fallacy is how a syllogism is wrong. This is an invalid syllogism as demonstrated by using logical laws of identity and inserting them into the syllogism. So let light (weight) = A, light (color) = B
P1: All feathers are A
P2: B is the opposite of dark.
Q: Therefore, there are no dark feathers.
@@Uhlbelk Thanks. I knew something was screwy in there but wasn't sure what.
I disagree with the part that logic is a discovery. Logic is by definition how the universe functions. The logic of transitivity for example (in cases where it applies). If i am older than Matt, and he is older than his wife, -then I am older then his wife. This is by definition how the universe is. It is intrinsic in reality, what we “discover” is how to express it. And thats the language of mathematics, although math itself isn’t a “discovery”, only how we express it is.
You disproved your own point in later sentences.
logic is an over simplified mechanism to make relations between concepts. It also matters that these coincide with reality, but it's not always the case, since it's impractical in some instances, even though possible in theory.
When you say "A dog has 4 legs" and you enconter one with a different number of legs your words have to encapsulate those exceptions so they are no longer incongruences. But then every postulate you assert requires that you have knowledge of all possible aspects of your subjects used in the premisses. But we most likely never know everything there is to know about anything. This brings the problem that some statments may hold contradictions we are yet to realize. We had to find a dog with more (or less) legs and classify it as a dog to make claims according to that fact. But if we say that all dogs have claws and we find one that doesn't grow them would that not make it a dog? Classification matters. But this can skew how we reach conclusions based onaxioms that may not yet carry all the specifics to make claims. The other problem may lie with creating a new word for every "dog" that has divergent characteristics from the previous meaning coined within the word "dog". This would create an endless amount of new words and definitions, perhaps one for each indivdual and therefore unique dog. And this is an impractical use of logic, it would be too puritanical to be useful as a tool in daily life.
Logic is a system built in accordance with the patterns of reality that most often repeat themselves. But this is simpified to be practically usable. Some patterns, at least in part we mean, may be the same, if we are rigorous nothing is ever the same. Different atoms, different circumstance, different outcome, which may be irrelevant to the logic leaps done, except we don't always know that until we collide with reasons that may make the distinctions relevant to the diferentiation of concepts (or redifinition of concepts).
Beware that concepts are pointers to reality not reality per se. Of course they are real but just has ideas or marks on papers. An elephant in your mind doesn't details you can empirically uncover unless you invent them. That is where concepts part with reality.
Logic is, in fact, mathematical in its nature.
Jesse Stewart exactly what i wanted to say, and although we invent the “language” of math, math itself isnt invented. And yeah my comment was a mess, i did contradict myself, i argued with two definitions of “discover”
1: discover meaning inventing in a sense
2: discover, already exist and you found it
I guess the second is the only definition and i was just confused at that moment. It felt as if it was different in the video
but: yellow is no wavelenghts of light, folks. because - what exactly is a wavelenght if light? no-thing is it's explaination.
to elaborate: there must be something that gets explained... before the explaination. i know, yeah, ts qualia in philo, but don't say that's no-thing, since it got explained some-later.
I'm pretty sure Sye meant to say "it's reasonable to accept that which you KNOW to be true." Meaningless, but that's what he meant.
The street is wet. Rain causes the street to be wet. Therefore it is raining. Looks outside and it is not raining. Many things can cause the street to be wet. Explain please.
...he literally has a video about this analogy...
ua-cam.com/video/XVpCPjzJ0yE/v-deo.html
The example he gives in this video is "If it is raining, the street will be wet" not "If the street is wet, it is raining". They are very different propositions.
The public works department could have opened a fire hydrant to flush silt out of a water main.
Sorry I really didn't understand the logical premise the first time through. I originally heard 'the street is wet so it must be raining' my bad.
Aristotle & His Merry Logicians would make a great band-name!
compare the biblical miracles with "simple natural" stuff like black holes. whats a burning bush sopposed to mean in the day of electric christmas lights? sparing 3 cent energy, is that the miracle?
Not topical - but damn Matt is looking healthier in these recent videos. Will have to listen to this later, but my position is that logic is merely an expression of common patterns, and that deduction to positive ends is only relevant insofar as the conclusion may be effectively acted upon, and only of value when this is the case. If the conclusion is 'there is a god' - then without being presented a god, it's just sophistry.
just sophistry? and sophistry is just entertainment? or a mental training. i want to say: something can be very-real, simply by it being talked about, thoughts are not "nothing". actually the reason we so damn busy talking here: if no gods exist, they were the most world-shaping thing "nonexistent" ever. don't dismiss some that doesn't lie on streets like stones n garbage. know hanzel n gretyl? then you know what they did, what happened then and who dies and who lives. is that just carbon or just transistors or holes in a laserdisk? no, ts fokken hanzel n gretyl.
It is important to remember that reason is not a good thing, only a tool that allows us to act when logic cannot be applied. If someone runs at you with a knife, you would be reasonable to pay attention. This is true, because you fill in the unknowns with facts that lead you to take the most precautious actions, or perhaps the most statistically likely. Without reason, we may not jump out of the way to avoid a car. With reason, we attempt to predict the drive, without facts, and decide if they will stop. So things that are reasonable are only logical by accident. In order for them to be anything else requires the supernatural and the belief in facts that have no evidence. And we know where that gets us :p
Enter Bayesian analysis
i am so sick, i can't follow what he is saying.... i need to watch this later.
“It’s not a pet peeve. It’s a major psychotic hatred.”
-George Carlin (loosely quoted)
@David Anewman No need for concern. There's no hell.
Audio is at 144p. That isn't logical at all.
but the sye-debate, seriously: noone ever brought up that if his points were of-any worth they also account for-him, not just poor matt?
Matt always looks drunk and slightly confused in his thumbnails
Hail Eris
logics are system-inherent, a statement can be logical, but if it is necessary or even smart or polite demanding logic might be not the most-logical approach.
some just don't want you to train handstand in their kitchen, although there is enough place n time all are bored n it somewhat healthy for them metabolisms - just no-do a freaken handstand it looks stupid go home if you must.
or explicitely knocking on the door to state the logical truth that 2+2 is 4. very true, but why not waitin tellin till i finished the crap?
The idea that it could be reasonable to believe in a lie is very controversial and provocative. We know that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth, but If reason is not a reliable pathway to truth either, then what is the point of being reasonable?
I certainly don't miss the days of Sye Ten and presuppositionalism.
we value it because Spock *drops mic*
A) all carpenters work with wood.
B) Bill works with wood.
C) BILL is a carpenter.
Structure is valid & sound but conclusion is false. Bill works in a lumber yard.
Matt says it's not reasonable to believe in what is true.
A) truth is not subject to belief.
B) God is not subject to belief.
C) therefore God is truth.
In logic, an argument can be invalid even if its conclusion is true, and an argument can be valid even if its conclusion is false. It’s a confusing concept, and people are easily fooled when an argument’s validity and believability don’t match up, especially in the case of invalid arguments with conclusions that are believable. Psychological scientists call this phenomenon belief bias.
For example, consider this argument.
All psychological scientists conduct empirical research.
William James conducts empirical research.
Therefore, William James is a psychological scientist.
All of the premises are true, and so is the conclusion, but it’s not a valid argument. All psychological scientists do conduct empirical research, and so does William James, but that’s not what tells us that James is a psychological scientist. Some people who conduct empirical research - Rosalind Franklin, for example - aren’t psychological scientists at
if the bible said it isn't true, would christians go bluescreen?
I just read an article on ars technica titled "Political radicals don't evaluate there own errors about anything" thought of Mat. No I don't think Mat is a radical. I thought he would find it interesting.
what that leaves us with in the end: the honest-try.
I, in everyday life try to consistantly logic the shit out of everything.
I think there is another way to look at the problem with that first premise. For example: Is it reasonable to believe all women who claim they have been raped?
Saying it is reasonable to believe that which is true obscures the fact that the actual premise is: If a statement is true, then it is reasonable to believe it.
If that premise were true, then it must also be true that: If a statement is false, then it is not reasonable to believe it.
There are obviously lots of statements that are reasonable to believe even though those statements are false. Not every mistake is a result of the failure of reason, sometimes you are given bad evidence, sometimes people lie.
reasonable to-believe still doesn't mean being on the right track. it is reasonable to believe islam in a muslim country. very-directly: since most women dont get raped, it is unreasonable to believe every woman claimin it being-so. but--- of-course every case has to be viewed seperated, if your goal is knowing the truth, not believe the reasonable.
@@vladtepes7539 I'm not sure what "being on the right track" means.
humans need a truth, seperated from it being true - or not? evidently-so, since all can't be simultan.
see, this might be some: i will say something unscientific and slightly-esoteric, i still live by (it is ok and i am allowed n it is on sin-level of havin a talisman): i think the body should now and then use itself, i mean go onto the ressources, not just stayn, stagnating, fluctuating - being in-expectation before the getting. i imagine it keeps young, i look.. well all say i look young for 33.
also: wearing watches makes old. me-theory, better get the-rid. uh, na, it is more like a certain mindset, of always-what-when-where goes with that n that is-- well bein old.
meaning is something attributed by living things, so it is a fallacy to put a concept onto what the concept derived from in the first place. uh.. meaning of life: done. whats next? whats the meaning of no life? hrm. tricky.
Are we ever going to get the vegan argument?
What does that have to do with atheism?
@@Uhlbelk all philosophy is connected, I would say in this case through the morality branch, but more importantly, he promised. But then VeganGains was a dolt on The Atheist Experience, and the topic was dropped completely. I was looking forward to hearing his thoughts on the matter.
Matt Dillahunty. The original Vulcan
I see that Black Non-believers mug in the back.
and spok exists. of-course not in the sense he is flyn around, but havin been very-real rolemodel, for many more than their father.
moment, hasnt god lead to behaviour, in complete disregard of his possible existance, which is optional for the behaviour taken place?
truth received your vote on what you believe is true, it was not regarded in the slightest.
seriously people seem thinking that what they believe is of any consequence on what is true and what not, you can believe all day long, its fact or not aside from that, so stop annoying others if not even truth cares.
I have a question... what does the Egyptian government say when it comes to the Bible? Like...their historians and shit? I mean, do they too say that their people enslaved the Jews, and the story of the plague and “what not”??? The whole “Let my people go” stuff...