CRITICAL THINKING - Fundamentals: Validity [HD]

how does validity of an argument define?

Most invalid video discussing validity ever made.

How are the people in the opening statement not using validity in the same sense? An argument is taking place and they are making a statement that "oh aha! you have finely made a valid argument that follows logical rules instead of fallacies and nonsense." They are using validity in the philosophical sense. They are not stating agreement with the argument just accepting that the person they are debating has finally formed a valid argument.

Premises is plural.

this is so hard!!! i have to know this for class and once i start feeling like i finally understand i get hit with a question and everything i thought i knew goes out the trash.

All fruits are chairs, but not all chairs are fruits. Therefore, square doesn't have to be a fruit.

Invalid

a conclusion being necessary means that the claim also conclusion is needed. think of it as applying for aa job and the interviewer says that you are necessary fir the job. you are needed because of your qualifications. inferencing here means to use the evidence being the premises and using them as reasons to make your claim. youre conclusion is what you strongly believe in and the premises are the because, they let us know why you think that. you could also work backwards by giving the claim 1st nd then using the premises to make convince us of what you claim. this happens only in valid deductions, the conclusion is based off of the premises.

the last one is invalid, because you can think of it as if fruit, then chair. saying that chair then fruit is the opposite. this is saying that whenever youre a chair you must be a fruit. the original said that whenever youre a fruit you must be a chair.

Invalid? Maybe valid if P1 was changed all chair are fruit

didn't like the examples in this videos.Alot of the examples were nonsence This video should be taken down and remade with more logical examples that can be grasped.

The last argument is invalid.
If all fruit are chair, and the square is chair, there is a possibility that square may not be fruit, even though it is chair.

U save my life 🙏

i just cannot understand what he is saying to save my life

How do psychology graduates make a living? genuine question lol

Good explanation👋!

Yes but
Ur mom

Invalid. We don't know if all chairs are fruit.
Square could be a fruit, which makes it a strong inductive argument, but not a valid deductive argument.

They could have explained the concept much better.
I will try to summarize the video in simple terms.

1) An argument is a list of statements that support a conclusion or answer a question.
2) A statement, in an argument, is known as a premise.
3) A valid argument is an argument in which all of the premises agree with each other, assuming that the premises are true. In other words, it’s valid when the premises do not conflict nor contradict the each other and we say the premises are true.
4) A valid argument does not identify if the argument is true or false, rather a valid argument only identifies if the premises support the conclusion or not.

Example 1:
P1: Bobby eats all foods that are red.
P2: Bananas are red.
Conclusion: Bobby eats bananas.

In Example 1, the argument is valid but not true because P2 is not true, yet all of the premises agree if we assume P2 is true.

Example 2:
Question: Is the world round?
P1: Bobby says the world is flat.
P2: Bobby is always right.
P3: The world has been proven to be round.
Answer: Yes, the world is round.

In Example 2, the argument is not valid yet true because the world is round but the premises don’t agree.

We can use valid arguments to find the best answer when our known information is incorrect or limited. We can then find better answers to our questions using another valid argument as we learn the correct or new information.
That’s why we should be humble and unbothered when someone criticizes our ideas and actions. What you think you know might be valid but not correct nor true.

Great video thank you!

Non valid

Why you give examples of not true things as valid arguments premesises what point am i missing there?

the last one is definitely invalid

What about this argument:
P1: LA county requires a vaccine mandate to enter stores.
P2: Vaccine mandates are discriminatory
C: Therefore, LA county is discriminatory.

Would this argument be valid:

P1: A company mandating vaccination for its employees is involved in discrimination
P2: Google is mandating the COVID vaccine for its employees.
C: Therefore, Google is discriminating based on vaccination status.

All humans are mortal.
Chickens are mortal.
Therefore..

I’m literally a grade 11 high school student taking a grade 12 philosophy course. Send help.

And Americans wonder why other countries dont speak english as a main language

Valid

vaild

Correct me if I'm wrong and you might have to draw this out... In a Venn Diagram the large rectangle would be labeled chair. Within the large rectangle would be a circle named fruit since "all fruit is a chair". Then the X mark representing square would be on the border of the circle named fruit due to the second statement not saying explicitly if square is or isn't a fruit. So there's a possibility that square is something other than a fruit making the argument invalid.

Invalid, even if all fruits are chairs doesn't entail that everything that is a chair is a fruit.

Wtf? Where's the answer?? I need someone to valid(ate) me!

i Really do not get that immortal part. How is all humans immortal??

Im trynna getting this philosophy course so that i can enhance my arguments skills, that can be necessarily used in law school.

thanks this video is so amazing

In the example at the end, the premise both p1 and p2 are true, but the conclusion is invalid, as square is not a fruit.

It is a Valid Argument.

invalid because fruits may not be the only thngs that can be chairs

The argument is valid however the premises are false. All fruit are not chair, square maybe or maybe not a chair.

thank you sir

If you want to think more abstractly about these types of problems without having to replace things with letters or choose new items that make the premises true, here's an interesting approach that thinks of the items as boxes being placed into other boxes. This works because putting things in boxes allows us to imagine items in physical positions, making their relationships to each other in space clear.

Original
All fruit is a chair.
Square is a chair.
Conclusion: Square is a fruit.

Box Translation
The fruit box is in the chair box.
The square is in the chair box.
Conclusion: Is the square in the fruit box?

Answer: No, as far as we know, we only put the square in the chair box.

Premises tell you to take an item and put it in a box. Conclusions are yes or no questions about which box an item is in.

For a comparison, look at this valid version of the argument:

Valid version
All fruit is a chair.
Square is a fruit.
Conclusion: Square is a chair.

Box Translation
The fruit box is in the chair box.
The square is in the fruit box.
Conclusion: Is the square also in the chair box?


Answer: Yes, since the square is in the fruit box and the fruit box is in the chair box, the square has to also be in the chair box.

a splif is a splat
if a fruit is a splif
than a splaf is a sploof



am i wrong?

Sounds like the V-Sauce of Philosophy. I like it

Spliff is a splaff. Wtf! Clear simple wording or easier contexta would make a huge difference to landing this video.

I absolutely loathe philosophy.

id say valid

This makes sense intuitively, but I'm interested to know more about exactly how an argument is determined to be valid. What is the method for determining if an inference follows from the premises?