i had no idea about the rules of validity until now. We have a test tomorrow and i assure you, im a lot more confident now than before. my prof. just confuses me during class, nice to hear it again from someone else.
Now I can understand everything. The book I think you are using is Logic by Hurley. I have a new version where chapter 2 is omitted, but anyways, a Logic book is boring. You make it feel very natural
I would assume then it's not required that either statement be distributed? I'm not sure. The fallacy committed is either the elicit major (undistributed P) or illicit minor (undistributed S). Sorry this is such an old comment lol
I can try to help? You have to keep in mind the distributions of each type of statement: A's distribute S, E's distribute both, I's distribute neither, and O's distribute P. So if the conclusion is an A statement (meaning it distributes the S, then one of the two premises must either also be an A (distributing the S) or an E (distributes both, including S). Does that help? Sorry I know this is a super old comment lol
Really? I can never figure out how to draw a conclusion from the venn diagrams. If you just memorize that A distrubutes S, E distributes both, I distributes neither, and O distributes P then you should be able to figure it out fairly easily. But to each their own! If venn diagrams work well for you stick with that!
Why on earth did you declare the construction AAA-3 (24:35): 1. Al M are P 2. All M are S - - - Therefore - - - 3. Are all S P - as invalid? We carry out an elementary algebraic calculation (where M is the average term): 1. All M are P (MP) 2. All M are S (MS) - - Calculation: ((MP*MS)/M = MPS/M = PS - - - 3. All S are P - This is the correct answer! (All S are P because both are M). The "rules 1-5" you mention are just an archaic hypothesis constructed before the advent of the Boole algebra. There are other errors in your video, for example, instead of an erroneous output (29:10), "Some O are N" (Did you write the answer yourself and declared it wrong yourself? :-) should write "Some N are O", etc., etc. You must be know that any syllogism and poly-syllogism (with the correct description of judgments) is easy to calculate algebraically, without inventing some ridiculous variants of conclusions! You can see «SYLLOGISM «SOCRATES» + ALGEBRAIC CALCULATION / Correct syllogisms for children and academics - 3»: ua-cam.com/video/w1Lm4OCoMdU/v-deo.html :-) More details: 1) Расчёт силлогизмов модусов ААА, AAI (All-All…) /РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ - 1 / Сalculation of syllogisms of modes AAA, AAI (All-All...) / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC - 1 ua-cam.com/video/NMDlodgZYfc/v-deo.html 2) 09-02. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-2 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-2: ua-cam.com/video/9-aWMfCIgk4/v-deo.html 3) 09-03. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-3 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-3: ua-cam.com/video/E0-41sQwqjY/v-deo.html 4) 09-04. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов EIx, IEx, EOx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-4 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes EIx, IEx, EOx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-4: ua-cam.com/video/9EaQ1O0puho/v-deo.html
In my video (09-06. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов EEx, EDx, DEx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-6 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes EEx, EDx, DEx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-6: ua-cam.com/video/lt_y3GNO4zY/v-deo.html ) I used information or print-screen(s) from yours video. Thank you!
You have no idea how helpful your videos are
you made something extremely foreign and frustrating, easy and understandable. Thank you for sharing. Wish I could have paid you tuition!
I’m glad was the only lost in this subject
I wish you were my teacher. But your videos here are good substitute for my teacher. Thank you.
Glad I found your videos. It took my frustration away.
i had no idea about the rules of validity until now. We have a test tomorrow and i assure you, im a lot more confident now than before. my prof. just confuses me during class, nice to hear it again from someone else.
This video was incredibly helpful. It made things crystal clear. Thank you!
thanks for the help Mark! really came in handy nailing my quiz with an A!
Dear Sir , Thanks a lot for your lessons.
Is deductive syllogistic logic just set theory put into words?
Now I can understand everything. The book I think you are using is Logic by Hurley. I have a new version where chapter 2 is omitted, but anyways, a Logic book is boring. You make it feel very natural
Thanks professor you gave me solid idea for me
u a hero big bro
where's 5.5 and 5.4?
Your all videos r helpfull fr meeeeeeeee tysmmmm sirrrr💕😍😍 it shud be a dream of any student to gets tution of logic frm u ..... ^_^loveeeeeeee 😍
thanks for your elaboration
Thank you very much for this awesome video.
One question.. What if the conclusion is an E statement? .. What is the fallacy for rule #2?
I would assume then it's not required that either statement be distributed? I'm not sure. The fallacy committed is either the elicit major (undistributed P) or illicit minor (undistributed S). Sorry this is such an old comment lol
Sir, I am confused in rule 2😩
I can try to help? You have to keep in mind the distributions of each type of statement: A's distribute S, E's distribute both, I's distribute neither, and O's distribute P. So if the conclusion is an A statement (meaning it distributes the S, then one of the two premises must either also be an A (distributing the S) or an E (distributes both, including S). Does that help? Sorry I know this is a super old comment lol
I prefer the Venn Diagrams more. The distribution rules mess me up.
Really? I can never figure out how to draw a conclusion from the venn diagrams. If you just memorize that A distrubutes S, E distributes both, I distributes neither, and O distributes P then you should be able to figure it out fairly easily. But to each their own! If venn diagrams work well for you stick with that!
Couldn’t you say I statements distribute both ways in the same way you say Os distribute? Namely that not all S are not P and not all P are not S?
thanks sir ! i have some weapons for tomorrow's finals...
need more examples
Oh, Hi Mark!
you are amazing
Why on earth did you declare the construction AAA-3 (24:35):
1. Al M are P
2. All M are S
- - - Therefore - - -
3. Are all S P - as invalid?
We carry out an elementary algebraic calculation (where M is the average term):
1. All M are P (MP)
2. All M are S (MS)
- - Calculation: ((MP*MS)/M = MPS/M = PS - - -
3. All S are P - This is the correct answer!
(All S are P because both are M).
The "rules 1-5" you mention are just an archaic hypothesis constructed before the advent of the Boole algebra.
There are other errors in your video, for example, instead of an erroneous output (29:10), "Some O are N" (Did you write the answer yourself and declared it wrong yourself? :-) should write "Some N are O", etc., etc.
You must be know that any syllogism and poly-syllogism (with the correct description of judgments) is easy to calculate algebraically, without inventing some ridiculous variants of conclusions! You can see «SYLLOGISM «SOCRATES» + ALGEBRAIC CALCULATION / Correct syllogisms for children and academics - 3»: ua-cam.com/video/w1Lm4OCoMdU/v-deo.html :-)
More details:
1) Расчёт силлогизмов модусов ААА, AAI (All-All…) /РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ - 1 / Сalculation of syllogisms of modes AAA, AAI (All-All...) / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC - 1 ua-cam.com/video/NMDlodgZYfc/v-deo.html
2) 09-02. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-2 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-2: ua-cam.com/video/9-aWMfCIgk4/v-deo.html
3) 09-03. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-3
/ Calculation of syllogisms of modes AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE...
/ SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-3: ua-cam.com/video/E0-41sQwqjY/v-deo.html
4) 09-04. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов EIx, IEx, EOx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-4 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes EIx, IEx, EOx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-4: ua-cam.com/video/9EaQ1O0puho/v-deo.html
Categorical... wow !
In my video (09-06. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов EEx, EDx, DEx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-6 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes EEx, EDx, DEx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-6: ua-cam.com/video/lt_y3GNO4zY/v-deo.html ) I used information or print-screen(s) from yours video. Thank you!
Like