1 00:00:00,510 --> 00:00:07,770 Hello there. I'm Marianne Talbot, the director of studies for philosophy at Oxford University's Department of Continuing Education. 2 00:00:07,770 --> 00:00:12,090 We're about to start a six week course called Critical Reasoning for Beginners. 3 00:00:12,090 --> 00:00:18,570 And we're going to go through looking at how to recognise an argument. What arguments are the different types of arguments? 4 00:00:18,570 --> 00:00:25,830 That's deduction and induction. And we'll be looking at how to set out arguments, logic, books style, how to analyse them. 5 00:00:25,830 --> 00:00:28,110 Then we'll be looking at how to evaluate them. 6 00:00:28,110 --> 00:00:34,590 And finally, we'll look at fallacies, which are arguments that look like good arguments, but which are bad arguments. 7 00:00:34,590 --> 00:00:42,470 OK, so we're going to start off on the first week with how to recognise arguments and what the nature of an argument is. 8 00:00:42,470 --> 00:00:47,880 Right. Okay, let's get started. You're all here to do critical reasoning. 9 00:00:47,880 --> 00:00:52,410 Okay. Why? Why? Why do you want to do critical reasoning? Company. 10 00:00:52,410 --> 00:01:01,270 You tell me what what you want stateful. What do you think you can't do now that you want to be able to do this course sharp. 11 00:01:01,270 --> 00:01:09,010 My sense of argumentation. Scholten, your sense of argumentation. Is there anyone you want to argue with in particular of your wife? 12 00:01:09,010 --> 00:01:14,120 Yeah, it won't work. You know, you've been married to somehow. 13 00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:19,650 These are just two terms before, but particularly political arguments and debate. 14 00:01:19,650 --> 00:01:21,090 Right. Okay. 15 00:01:21,090 --> 00:01:28,010 So now that I don't hear someone detect the flaws in other people's arguments, you ought to be able to detect the flaws in other people's arguments. 16 00:01:28,010 --> 00:01:32,400 Okay. What about your own arguments? Know that, too. 17 00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:38,310 Because that's very important. These are one of the things I talk about today is something called the principle of charity. 18 00:01:38,310 --> 00:01:42,110 And you'll see where. Well, that's what I say. 19 00:01:42,110 --> 00:01:46,260 I don't want to get lost. That's a valid point. 20 00:01:46,260 --> 00:01:57,000 So to actually be able to have conviction, what I'm saying, if I believe that someone was intellectual and eloquent, beat me down. 21 00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:05,790 Right. Okay. And one of one thing that will help. I mean, it won't do the trick completely because, of course, that confidence has to come from you, 22 00:02:05,790 --> 00:02:22,980 but it will help to feel that you know where you are in arguments. So I called for the fact that I read the Thomas more and a half, actually. 23 00:02:22,980 --> 00:02:27,720 That's how I came to philosophy. Funny enough to say something like that, I did an open university course. 24 00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:33,870 I was a mature student, not very mature, 26. And I thought it was an open university course. 25 00:02:33,870 --> 00:02:42,950 They did logic in those days, formal symbolic logic. And I tried to do this logic and I found it so difficult, really, really difficult. 26 00:02:42,950 --> 00:02:47,070 And I sat up all night and still trying to do it. 27 00:02:47,070 --> 00:02:50,280 And in the morning I realised that I've had such a much nicer night, 28 00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:55,050 much better night than I've had with all sorts of other things you might stay up all night to do. 29 00:02:55,050 --> 00:02:58,800 I really enjoyed it. And that's what got me into philosophy in the first place. 30 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:04,130 I came out it's very nice of school at 50 and I came on here eventually. 31 00:03:04,130 --> 00:03:09,330 Eventually I took quite a long time, but I had never lost my love of philosophy. 32 00:03:09,330 --> 00:03:14,490 I've never lost my love of learning. And that's all down to philosophy, this confidence. 33 00:03:14,490 --> 00:03:20,370 You have an argument because if you can learn how to argue properly, you can. 34 00:03:20,370 --> 00:03:22,590 Nothing is hidden from you. 35 00:03:22,590 --> 00:03:32,310 In principle, it's always possible to to tease out the arguments and to evaluate the arguments and to take yourself that step further. 36 00:03:32,310 --> 00:03:36,180 And so I hope that after this series of six lectures, of course, 37 00:03:36,180 --> 00:03:40,800 you're not going to go away knowing all about logic and knowing all about how to reason properly. 38 00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:47,070 But I hope what I'll have done by that time is giving you more confidence and giving you a feeling for the fun it can be so that you'll 39 00:03:47,070 --> 00:03:55,550 go away and start looking yourself and not be very happy to pass on to reading or give some other ideas of how you might do that. 40 00:03:55,550 --> 00:04:01,060 Right. Okay. Let me tell you about Monty Python. I'm sure some of you know about it. 41 00:04:01,060 --> 00:04:04,120 But what it is, is it's called the argument clinic. 42 00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:11,950 And one man, I've got to say, goes in and says John Cleese sitting there and he says, is this the place for arguments or something like that? 43 00:04:11,950 --> 00:04:16,980 Jodie says, whatever it is or not. 44 00:04:16,980 --> 00:04:20,970 Well, no, you. Yes, I have. No, you haven't. Yes, I have. 45 00:04:20,970 --> 00:04:24,780 And this goes on this is almost arguing you're contradicting me. 46 00:04:24,780 --> 00:04:28,860 And jumbly says, no, no, you are not. Yes, you are. 47 00:04:28,860 --> 00:04:33,040 And so it goes on then presses a bell. That's the end of the session. 48 00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:37,980 So that wasn't five minutes. Yes, it was. Yes, it was. 49 00:04:37,980 --> 00:04:45,480 I'm not someone who says two things. And so on. And that was supposed to be an amusing introduction. 50 00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:52,140 But what I wanted to move on to is the idea that John Cleese had it wrong. 51 00:04:52,140 --> 00:05:00,560 Of course I can. It isn't a set of contradictions. It isn't a set of just you say one thing and I say another that doesn't get us anywhere. 52 00:05:00,560 --> 00:05:08,270 Part of the point of argument is to move this on from where we are to somewhere a bit further. 53 00:05:08,270 --> 00:05:14,340 Just imagine if the only way we could find out about the world was through our senses. 54 00:05:14,340 --> 00:05:24,050 If we could see one thing and form one belief, but not take that belief and move on to it to another belief. 55 00:05:24,050 --> 00:05:30,410 So you could say that that's blue and the carpet's blue, but you couldn't say when two things are the same colour. 56 00:05:30,410 --> 00:05:34,720 They match, therefore, that the chair and the carpet match. 57 00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:43,040 Do you see whatever the argument takes us from where we are to to where we want to be or sometimes where we don't want to be? 58 00:05:43,040 --> 00:05:50,020 We'll never get very far without argument. Yes. 59 00:05:50,020 --> 00:05:57,660 If I didn't. Well, thank you so much. 60 00:05:57,660 --> 00:06:03,830 It's great. I know. 61 00:06:03,830 --> 00:06:11,330 I mean, we're awash with technicians here. Okay, so let's have a look at the definition of an argument. 62 00:06:11,330 --> 00:06:18,770 An argument is a set of sentences. And I put sentences there after you wouldn't believe it, spending half an hour wondering whether short statements, 63 00:06:18,770 --> 00:06:23,330 propositions, little expressions of statements or something. 64 00:06:23,330 --> 00:06:27,380 But I'm pretty sentences anyone who wants to quarrel with that's most welcome to do so. 65 00:06:27,380 --> 00:06:36,570 A set of sentences such that one of them was being said to be true and the others are being offered as reasons for believing the truth of the first. 66 00:06:36,570 --> 00:06:39,070 Okay, that's all there is to an argument. 67 00:06:39,070 --> 00:06:48,380 I put others with the S in brackets here because of course we might say that one thing is true on the basis of just one other sentence. 68 00:06:48,380 --> 00:06:54,020 So here's my argument. It's Friday. Always wears jeans on a Friday. 69 00:06:54,020 --> 00:06:59,090 So Marijan will be wearing jeans today. Okay. That's a set of sentences. 70 00:06:59,090 --> 00:07:04,100 That is, as a matter of fact, an argument. OK, what what are the sentences? 71 00:07:04,100 --> 00:07:09,680 Tell me what the sentences are. This is an easy question. So a lot of you into a false sense of security. 72 00:07:09,680 --> 00:07:13,490 That's right. Right. It's Friday. That's one sentence. OK. 73 00:07:13,490 --> 00:07:18,260 It's I've got Komaroff tricks up on straight onto the sentence. 74 00:07:18,260 --> 00:07:25,010 But that doesn't matter. It is. Friday is a sentence. Okay. Next one I told you is easy. 75 00:07:25,010 --> 00:07:30,060 Money always wears jeans on a Friday. That's right. So next one area. 76 00:07:30,060 --> 00:07:34,910 I thought you were in jeans today. OK. Those are the sentences that make up the argument. 77 00:07:34,910 --> 00:07:40,550 Exactly. So. Now, here's a bit of tech technology terminology for you. 78 00:07:40,550 --> 00:07:42,890 Technology focus cells. 79 00:07:42,890 --> 00:07:52,370 A conclusion is the sentence being said to be true and the premises are the sentences being offered as reasons for believing the other one. 80 00:07:52,370 --> 00:07:57,140 OK. Remember, that might be just one. That might be just one premise. That doesn't need to be, too. 81 00:07:57,140 --> 00:08:06,080 That could be 20 premises. But what makes something a premise and what makes something a conclusion is the role that they're playing in the argument, 82 00:08:06,080 --> 00:08:11,420 the function that they're performing. So here's the argument again. 83 00:08:11,420 --> 00:08:17,510 What's the conclusion of the argument? That's right. 84 00:08:17,510 --> 00:08:22,550 Yeah, that's the conclusion, because that's the one we're saying is true. 85 00:08:22,550 --> 00:08:29,370 And what are the premises? That's right. 86 00:08:29,370 --> 00:08:34,490 So there are two premises to this argument and one conclusion. OK, very simple stuff. 87 00:08:34,490 --> 00:08:42,440 So there's the conclusion that read Mind will be wearing jeans today on the premises in green. 88 00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:48,220 It's very important to distinguish arguments from sets of sentences. 89 00:08:48,220 --> 00:08:52,850 Let's see how to do that, because an argument is a set of sentences. But it's more than that. 90 00:08:52,850 --> 00:08:58,070 There's more to an argument than the set of sentences. Question is, how do you feel about questions? 91 00:08:58,070 --> 00:09:03,620 Because I wanted to ask about this one. Does it matter which they. I'm very happy to take questions. 92 00:09:03,620 --> 00:09:05,480 If I think they're going to go on too long, 93 00:09:05,480 --> 00:09:13,510 I'll shut you up and put you into the question time or if I think it's complicated or something, but otherwise I plan to go on. 94 00:09:13,510 --> 00:09:20,120 Well, the question then is presumably the sentence as a premise depends on another, 95 00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:27,500 because it's Friday and you know, the Marianne in that particular argument. 96 00:09:27,500 --> 00:09:34,670 Yes, that's good question. Let's go back to it. I actually I'm very happy for you to ask questions, because if you do, 97 00:09:34,670 --> 00:09:39,550 it might be a clarification, a clarification question like that one, which is quite useful. 98 00:09:39,550 --> 00:09:44,240 And if you look at that, let's get to that one. 99 00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:50,840 If you take out that premise, you might still have an argument. 100 00:09:50,840 --> 00:09:55,190 You say it's Friday. So, Marianne, we'll be wearing jeans today. 101 00:09:55,190 --> 00:10:00,390 But what have you done? You've left the implication that you you're making. 102 00:10:00,390 --> 00:10:06,760 Right. That's right. You've left a suppressed premise, haven't you, because that wouldn't be a good argument. 103 00:10:06,760 --> 00:10:14,340 It would still be an argument, actually, because you'd still be giving one sentence as a reason to believe another one. 104 00:10:14,340 --> 00:10:18,790 But it wouldn't be it wouldn't be an argument that could possibly be convincing. 105 00:10:18,790 --> 00:10:25,060 Were it not for that. So we often leave premises suppressed in an argument. 106 00:10:25,060 --> 00:10:34,900 But usually when because of the context or because of something that we can assume, we assume that the person knows the other one. 107 00:10:34,900 --> 00:10:40,170 So if we all knew if you knew that every time. 108 00:10:40,170 --> 00:10:47,560 Well, that every Friday I wear jeans, if you will, knew that that would be an argument without the second premise. 109 00:10:47,560 --> 00:10:53,900 So thank you for that. People people didn't have that assumption. Is that what would be termed the non sequitur? 110 00:10:53,900 --> 00:10:58,180 Yes. Yes. Well done. We'll say something more about what those actors. 111 00:10:58,180 --> 00:11:03,810 Not today, probably, but later. Of course, you could actually say those news on Friday. 112 00:11:03,810 --> 00:11:08,290 She was wearing jeans today. You leave out then? 113 00:11:08,290 --> 00:11:11,660 That's right. Yes, you can. 114 00:11:11,660 --> 00:11:15,810 You can. I mean, that would be a different argument, but it would be an argument. 115 00:11:15,810 --> 00:11:29,120 Yes. And you can change the rules, say Jean Edwards, Edwards, your falls. 116 00:11:29,120 --> 00:11:33,140 Right? Well, move, move. 117 00:11:33,140 --> 00:11:37,660 That would be a false argument. Hold that one. We'll come back to that in a minute. 118 00:11:37,660 --> 00:11:42,490 You'll see. What does it say about that? I just want to note that. 119 00:11:42,490 --> 00:11:46,450 OK. I'm going to move on because. Yes, you can make an argument out of it. 120 00:11:46,450 --> 00:11:50,230 Well, let me just move on and show you exactly what I mean to say that. 121 00:11:50,230 --> 00:11:57,580 OK. It's important to take just arguments from sets of sentences since the sentences that are not arguments 122 00:11:57,580 --> 00:12:03,760 might either have no relation a tool between them or they may have between over any relation. 123 00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:10,190 Other than that characterising an argument, for example, a set of sentences might be consistent, 124 00:12:10,190 --> 00:12:15,970 i.e. such that they could all be true together without being an argument. 125 00:12:15,970 --> 00:12:20,890 Do you see what I mean? Or they could be related by all referring to. 126 00:12:20,890 --> 00:12:27,130 What's your name? Mike. Mike. They could be related in that way without being in argument. 127 00:12:27,130 --> 00:12:28,840 Do you see what I mean? Lots of different ways. 128 00:12:28,840 --> 00:12:40,540 Sets of sentences can be related, but the relation in order to be one an argument, it's got to what is it? 129 00:12:40,540 --> 00:12:45,310 So isn't it true? Good. 130 00:12:45,310 --> 00:12:50,980 In order to make an argument has got to be one sentence. That's that you're putting forward as being true. 131 00:12:50,980 --> 00:12:55,420 And the other sentences or sentence is a reason for believing that thing. 132 00:12:55,420 --> 00:13:01,300 That's the relation that characterises an argument. Nothing else. 133 00:13:01,300 --> 00:13:05,140 Here's two sets of sentences. That isn't an argument. The sea is salt. 134 00:13:05,140 --> 00:13:10,770 Melbourne's in Australia, but it's very easy to make it an argument. 135 00:13:10,770 --> 00:13:18,280 The sea is salt. Therefore, Melbourne's in Australia. Now, you think I've made that an argument or not? 136 00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:24,110 No. Why not? A false. It's a whole saga. 137 00:13:24,110 --> 00:13:28,580 No, that particular one. I think you'll see why I'm saying this. 138 00:13:28,580 --> 00:13:33,220 It's a wash. It's newsworthy. There's no link between us. 139 00:13:33,220 --> 00:13:38,310 So you think that my putting therefore in. Doesn't make it an argument? 140 00:13:38,310 --> 00:13:43,470 Okay. Let me tell you a little story. Okay. We're we're doing a panel show. 141 00:13:43,470 --> 00:13:51,940 Okay. We've got to find out things and find out on things and then come back and we'll win a huge prise. 142 00:13:51,940 --> 00:13:57,010 Now, we're particularly ignorant contestants here. 143 00:13:57,010 --> 00:14:00,510 We don't know whether the sea salt. We don't know about the Melbourne's in Australia. 144 00:14:00,510 --> 00:14:05,220 But we do know that if one of these census is true, so is the other. 145 00:14:05,220 --> 00:14:10,540 Okay. That's all we know. We know. We know if one of these sentences is true, says the other. 146 00:14:10,540 --> 00:14:14,450 So now we've got to find out whether whether either of these census is this true. 147 00:14:14,450 --> 00:14:17,560 So half is half of us run off to see whether the seats sold. 148 00:14:17,560 --> 00:14:22,720 Now, the Hoffs run off to find out from the Melton's in Australia and the Melbourne's in Australia. 149 00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:26,330 Sorry to see Assault's ones come back first. They say the sea salt. 150 00:14:26,330 --> 00:14:32,260 Melbourne, Melbourne's in Australia. Hey, is that an argument? Let me know. 151 00:14:32,260 --> 00:14:44,400 That's pretty good argument, isn't it? What I'm doing there is it's I'm giving a reason, I'm saying Melbourne isn't in Australia is true on site, 152 00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:52,020 and I'm giving a reason for believing it, namely the truth of the seas being sold. 153 00:14:52,020 --> 00:14:56,900 Fair enough. This is an argument. And what's what city. 154 00:14:56,900 --> 00:15:06,120 OK. It was an argument before I gave you context, actually, because arguing is something that we do with sentences. 155 00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:11,280 OK. It's we do them because of all sorts of things to do with our background. 156 00:15:11,280 --> 00:15:15,840 What we've just found out, our desires, our hopes off is our intentions. 157 00:15:15,840 --> 00:15:19,950 Things like that. Arguing is something we do and we can do it in any way. 158 00:15:19,950 --> 00:15:30,990 This is why the idea of artificial intelligence, which was talked about a great deal a few years ago, is getting, frankly, nowhere. 159 00:15:30,990 --> 00:15:35,730 And the reason it's getting nowhere is human beings can see the relevance. 160 00:15:35,730 --> 00:15:45,570 Once the context is provided that a computer so far can't see, I mean, fingers crossed that we will be able to deal with this one. 161 00:15:45,570 --> 00:15:50,190 But the fact is that the minutes I think in a context, you can see the argument is, can't you? 162 00:15:50,190 --> 00:16:07,740 Some of you. Not. Is this just context or is it an implicit sentence that the fact that we have explicitly said both must be true if one is true? 163 00:16:07,740 --> 00:16:14,670 You're right. You're absolutely right. That, in fact, you might say that a lot of you could say there's a suppressed premise in there, 164 00:16:14,670 --> 00:16:22,110 which is that if the sea is salt, then Melbourne is in Australia. That and I've given that by giving the context, if you like. 165 00:16:22,110 --> 00:16:31,200 So if we were game contestants in that situation, I wouldn't have to give that suppressed premise because we would all know it. 166 00:16:31,200 --> 00:16:35,220 But again, well done. So I think that's the point at the backrest premises. 167 00:16:35,220 --> 00:16:41,010 The same context. No, no, no. It provides in the context. 168 00:16:41,010 --> 00:16:47,310 I enabled us to see the suppressed premise, if you like. 169 00:16:47,310 --> 00:16:51,540 Because just at the moment, there's no suppressed fairness that we can see. 170 00:16:51,540 --> 00:16:57,090 I mean, we don't see why that's an argument you want tonight. It was an argument because you can't see the relevance between the two. 171 00:16:57,090 --> 00:17:06,420 What I did was make one relevant to the other. And in doing so, I provided you with the premise that that was suppressed. 172 00:17:06,420 --> 00:17:13,680 So there's a suppressed premise, which is a sentence because the premises are always sentences. 173 00:17:13,680 --> 00:17:23,700 And that's what I provided by providing the context. I'm struggling with that because that's all right. 174 00:17:23,700 --> 00:17:29,700 That's happened in Australia, not because the sea salt, but because this is true. 175 00:17:29,700 --> 00:17:34,660 I know this is a very interesting. Okay. Very interesting question. 176 00:17:34,660 --> 00:17:37,780 What's your confusing? I apologise. 177 00:17:37,780 --> 00:17:52,400 Is causation and entailment the premises, the premises, the premises of an argument do not cause the conclusion to be true. 178 00:17:52,400 --> 00:18:01,390 OK, if that's the premise and that's a premise. Do you think that what's caused me to wear jeans today is these two things? 179 00:18:01,390 --> 00:18:10,690 Not necessarily. I mean, it might be or it might be that actually I wear jeans on a Friday because to commemorate the first pair of jeans 180 00:18:10,690 --> 00:18:18,460 that my mom ever bought me or something that I can't think of a good reason for my healthy hideaways jeans. 181 00:18:18,460 --> 00:18:32,750 I might wear jeans every day. Yes, exactly. So. So the fact that A and B together entails C doesn't mean that A and B cause C, OK. 182 00:18:32,750 --> 00:18:37,900 And when you say that the C is salt doesn't cause Melbourne to be in Australia, you're quite right. 183 00:18:37,900 --> 00:18:45,390 But say that the sea salt, therefore Melbourne in Australia isn't implying causation of any kind. 184 00:18:45,390 --> 00:18:53,340 OK. What do you do. Oh you ignore them. 185 00:18:53,340 --> 00:19:00,070 What. Again, that's a very good question. I'm glad you asked that. Let's go some sea salt on this. 186 00:19:00,070 --> 00:19:06,010 Well, actually, you could do it with a Marijan one as well, because there are lots of people called Marianne off of me in the world. 187 00:19:06,010 --> 00:19:11,230 All it means is if Marianne is there anywhere else called Marianne in this room. 188 00:19:11,230 --> 00:19:18,220 All right. Put up your hand if you're called John. This is the second time this has happened to me. 189 00:19:18,220 --> 00:19:22,450 Okay. There are no jobs in this room. Let's just make your mind. 190 00:19:22,450 --> 00:19:27,010 Is there anyone else called Mike? Mike to Mike's in this room. 191 00:19:27,010 --> 00:19:32,470 If I have a say. If I say Mike is tall. Okay. That's ambiguous, isn't it? 192 00:19:32,470 --> 00:19:38,380 It has two meanings. I could be referring to that, Michael. That Mike. One of you may be short. 193 00:19:38,380 --> 00:19:47,020 In which case be falls of love and true the other. But what I've actually got here is two sentences. 194 00:19:47,020 --> 00:19:52,720 How complicated I'm going to get here. There's a type of sentence. 195 00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:59,670 I have no penance. Believe it or not, it's another thing that fell off the list. 196 00:19:59,670 --> 00:20:07,090 Would you mind? You can't see this. 197 00:20:07,090 --> 00:20:12,670 Yes, you can imagine it. Okay. Mike is told is what it says. 198 00:20:12,670 --> 00:20:16,480 Now, if I could, I could get Mike. Let's put John this tool there. 199 00:20:16,480 --> 00:20:22,270 Now, if I put John his tool up there, that has no meaning, doesn't it, 200 00:20:22,270 --> 00:20:29,200 in the context of this room, in the sense that there's nobody to whom John refers as we know. 201 00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:35,830 OK, but I could use that sentence, John, as a tool to say something inside in the same way. 202 00:20:35,830 --> 00:20:40,610 Here is a sentence time that could be used to say things. 203 00:20:40,610 --> 00:20:49,690 And I could use this type of sentence to say Mike his tool, or I could use the same sentence to say Mike his tool. 204 00:20:49,690 --> 00:20:54,460 But those are two different tokens of the same type of sentence. 205 00:20:54,460 --> 00:20:58,490 See what I mean? So just does that's one token of the type chair. 206 00:20:58,490 --> 00:21:01,990 And that's another one. And this is one token of the type human being. 207 00:21:01,990 --> 00:21:08,620 And that's another one. Mike, his tool is one token of that type of sentence. 208 00:21:08,620 --> 00:21:11,770 And Mike, his tool is another token of that type of sense. 209 00:21:11,770 --> 00:21:20,030 So actually, if you have to Melbourne's, you can have two arguments that that could be a good idea. 210 00:21:20,030 --> 00:21:29,520 The B C is salt. Therefore, Melbourne, which is in the Northern Territory, is in Australia or Melbourne, which is in. 211 00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:35,080 Thank you. Victoria is in Australia for autism or. 212 00:21:35,080 --> 00:21:43,770 Well, no, not in Derbyshire because that would falsify that one wouldn't it, unless there's a Darbyshire in Australia against it. 213 00:21:43,770 --> 00:21:51,260 Yeah. Is false existing existing facts. 214 00:21:51,260 --> 00:22:03,270 And I'm going to hold over that question and I'm going to take it together with with your claim that the argument is false. 215 00:22:03,270 --> 00:22:09,870 Okay. And I'll come back to it shortly. Okay. 216 00:22:09,870 --> 00:22:14,110 So arguing is something that we do with sentences. 217 00:22:14,110 --> 00:22:18,770 We could any sentences could form part of an argument. There's no such thing as a. 218 00:22:18,770 --> 00:22:26,750 Sentenced, that couldn't be part of an argument. What makes it an argument is the fact that we are making an argument, 219 00:22:26,750 --> 00:22:34,820 claim we're putting forward one sentence and we're offering the other sentences as reasons to believe that sentence. 220 00:22:34,820 --> 00:22:40,790 So you cannot recognise arguments by recognising the sentences that are in arguments. 221 00:22:40,790 --> 00:22:46,940 You've got to recognise the relation between the sentences. OK. 222 00:22:46,940 --> 00:22:51,380 Let's have a look at these. Which of these sentences are arguments? Right. 223 00:22:51,380 --> 00:22:57,790 Who thinks that this is an argument? OK. 224 00:22:57,790 --> 00:23:03,720 No one else. OK. Why do you think that's an argument he's making the assumption the storm broke 225 00:23:03,720 --> 00:23:09,400 the clouds in the sky and the storm broke because the clouds formed the back. 226 00:23:09,400 --> 00:23:17,650 Does that make it an argument? Because. 227 00:23:17,650 --> 00:23:26,640 That we had, because it's very difficult, because distinguish causes and reasons for something, OK? 228 00:23:26,640 --> 00:23:36,070 There can be a causal relation between two events. So a causal relation between two events. 229 00:23:36,070 --> 00:23:46,540 And that can be a rational relation between two sentences or two beliefs. 230 00:23:46,540 --> 00:23:55,930 OK. And we tend to use because the both of these types of relation, that these are causes and these are reasons. 231 00:23:55,930 --> 00:24:02,440 And you were making that up and you shouldn't be worried about making this area because it is a very, very common one. 232 00:24:02,440 --> 00:24:07,150 You were thinking of the causal relation as a rational relation. But it's not, is it? 233 00:24:07,150 --> 00:24:13,960 OK, so that's not an argument because always saying is that actually three events happened, don't we? 234 00:24:13,960 --> 00:24:18,220 Firstly, clouds formed, that sky blackens, then the storm broke. 235 00:24:18,220 --> 00:24:27,840 And there may be a causal relation between them, but we're not saying that these two are reason for believing the other always with me. 236 00:24:27,840 --> 00:24:32,440 This one is this no argument. Put your head down, you think? Yes. Yes. 237 00:24:32,440 --> 00:24:42,850 OK. Which is a conclusion based on the premises. 238 00:24:42,850 --> 00:24:47,680 That's right. Manchester's North Whatsit. Edinburgh's North Boxwood. 239 00:24:47,680 --> 00:24:52,180 Sorry, think North Manchester. Edinburgh is north of Oxford is the conclusion. 240 00:24:52,180 --> 00:24:59,950 Okay, so this one is since Manchester is north Watson, Edinburgh is North Manchester, Edinburgh is north of Oxford as it grows north of Oxford. 241 00:24:59,950 --> 00:25:05,120 Is the conclusion. The other two of the premises. That's definitely an argument. 242 00:25:05,120 --> 00:25:09,460 Okay. Which is float because which is a bead of wood and wood floats. 243 00:25:09,460 --> 00:25:15,700 Is that an argument or not? Put your hands up if you think it is an argument. That's an argument. 244 00:25:15,700 --> 00:25:21,250 You're quite right. What's the conclusion? Which is float. 245 00:25:21,250 --> 00:25:27,070 Okay. And then the premises are. Which floats. 246 00:25:27,070 --> 00:25:31,960 That's right. Notice that the conclusion is that the front here doesn't make any difference, does it? 247 00:25:31,960 --> 00:25:39,670 Because what makes the sentence a conclusion falls from the dormitory. 248 00:25:39,670 --> 00:25:43,540 No, because it might not follow from the other two premises. It might be a bad argument. 249 00:25:43,540 --> 00:25:51,430 What makes something a conclusion? Because no one does that in a sentence. 250 00:25:51,430 --> 00:26:01,240 Well, I ceramicist if you saying if you wanted to prevent an argument, but it wouldn't have done what somebody would say is true. 251 00:26:01,240 --> 00:26:06,580 It's the one you're saying is true. That's right. You'll see. You'll say this is true because of the others. 252 00:26:06,580 --> 00:26:10,500 Whether because as a rational. Because those are causal. Because. 253 00:26:10,500 --> 00:26:20,840 Okay, let me tell you again, the only thing that makes a sentence, a conclusion or a premise is the role that it's playing in the argument. 254 00:26:20,840 --> 00:26:28,840 Okay. If it's playing the role of being the the sentence for which you're arguing, then it's a conclusion. 255 00:26:28,840 --> 00:26:36,630 And if it's playing the role of a sentence for which the story which you're offering is a reason for believing the other one, then it's a premise. 256 00:26:36,630 --> 00:26:45,230 Okay. That's the only thing that makes sense. It's a premise or a conclusion. That's not true. 257 00:26:45,230 --> 00:26:53,560 Well, we'll come to truth in a minute. Two. Truth is, you're quite right to think the truth is very important, but not just yet. 258 00:26:53,560 --> 00:26:59,890 Notice in study that there's no there's no reason why a sentence that is playing the role 259 00:26:59,890 --> 00:27:05,830 of a conclusion in one argument can't play the role of a premise in another argument. 260 00:27:05,830 --> 00:27:06,510 Do you see what I mean? 261 00:27:06,510 --> 00:27:13,180 That's why it's very important that what makes them of premise or a conclusion is the function of playing the role they're playing. 262 00:27:13,180 --> 00:27:18,310 Not anything intrinsic to the sentence. Music is intrinsic to the sentence. 263 00:27:18,310 --> 00:27:24,610 You'd have a sentence that could only be a conclusion. Which would be rather odd, wouldn't it? 264 00:27:24,610 --> 00:27:29,170 I'm not sure there are some that I might think of, one that I call off the top of mind. 265 00:27:29,170 --> 00:27:34,420 So. So what makes a sentence? A conclusion is that you are arguing for it. 266 00:27:34,420 --> 00:27:39,790 What makes it a premise is that you are using it to argue for something else. 267 00:27:39,790 --> 00:27:50,620 Okay. Is this an argument? Hands up. If you think it is Keeping Them Honest, it's an more difficult one, isn't it? 268 00:27:50,620 --> 00:27:59,680 If it were a conclusion which would prefer if it were an argument, which would be the conclusion, think this is an answer. 269 00:27:59,680 --> 00:28:09,730 Okay. So then the premise would be Jesse James left town and Jesse James took his gang with him so we could say Jesse James left town. 270 00:28:09,730 --> 00:28:15,250 Jesse James took his gang with him. Therefore, things have been a lot quieter. 271 00:28:15,250 --> 00:28:20,510 That doesn't imply. My family doesn't have that Jesse James and his gang. 272 00:28:20,510 --> 00:28:26,240 We can make anything out of it. Yes. I don't think that's an argument myself. 273 00:28:26,240 --> 00:28:30,620 I think it's just a concatenation of sentences. 274 00:28:30,620 --> 00:28:35,210 I several sentences strung together as it might. 275 00:28:35,210 --> 00:28:38,480 There might be a problem. In fact, there probably is a causal relationship, too. 276 00:28:38,480 --> 00:28:44,350 Isn't that why things quieter? Because Jesse James left town and taken notes, taken his gang with him as well. 277 00:28:44,350 --> 00:28:50,300 It's not just an explanation. Oh, no explanations, reasons and causes. 278 00:28:50,300 --> 00:28:57,320 Now, you're really getting into the interesting stuff. Explanations can be both causal and rational, can't they? 279 00:28:57,320 --> 00:29:02,180 So I can give an explanation of your behaviour that's rational. 280 00:29:02,180 --> 00:29:07,340 All I can get an explanation of your behaviour. That's corseted. So what's your name? 281 00:29:07,340 --> 00:29:11,930 Paul. Paul. Okay, so the reason Paul did that was whatever. 282 00:29:11,930 --> 00:29:15,710 Or Paul did that because. What's your name? 283 00:29:15,710 --> 00:29:19,590 Jenny. Jenny pushed him. You. Just push it. 284 00:29:19,590 --> 00:29:25,800 Pull over. Okay. All Paul fell over because he was trying to make the children laugh. 285 00:29:25,800 --> 00:29:30,620 Juicy ones. A rational explanation. And the other's a causal explanation. 286 00:29:30,620 --> 00:29:35,870 Causes reasons and explanations are intimately tied together. 287 00:29:35,870 --> 00:29:48,170 We'll talk about probably quite often in these sessions. But the important thing is that it might be that not all causes are reasons. 288 00:29:48,170 --> 00:29:56,750 It may be those are all reasons of causes. But it's not the case that all causes or reasons because some causes are non rational. 289 00:29:56,750 --> 00:30:02,840 They have no reasons involved in them at all. Anyway, this is getting complicated and you don't need to worry about this. 290 00:30:02,840 --> 00:30:08,270 The important thing is that a set of sentences is only an argument if you're putting 291 00:30:08,270 --> 00:30:13,970 one forward is true and putting the others forward as reasons for believing the one. 292 00:30:13,970 --> 00:30:22,680 That's what an argument is. So if a set of sentences doesn't have that relation between them, it isn't an argument. 293 00:30:22,680 --> 00:30:31,400 Not a reason why the Thomas cause increased. So it may be just a coincidence. 294 00:30:31,400 --> 00:30:35,830 Yes. You may not be saying there's even a causal relationship here. 295 00:30:35,830 --> 00:30:39,260 You know, actually, since Jessie Davis left after his gang with him, 296 00:30:39,260 --> 00:30:45,610 things have been a lot quieter because it's not been necessary to do this stuff or the other. 297 00:30:45,610 --> 00:30:49,880 Yes. But you could very easily set back on testimony that wasn't. 298 00:30:49,880 --> 00:30:53,540 Well, as I said, you know, supply context in which anything is an argument. 299 00:30:53,540 --> 00:31:01,800 So that's true. Yeah. Is a set of sentences different subjective or objective? 300 00:31:01,800 --> 00:31:08,150 So is it a matter of opinion? Well, is it. 301 00:31:08,150 --> 00:31:15,960 I mean, if we go back to I mean, you can answer this question yourself. If we go back to that one, is it a matter of opinion that that's an argument? 302 00:31:15,960 --> 00:31:20,150 Or did I somehow make it an argument? 303 00:31:20,150 --> 00:31:34,270 I mean, did I make it appear to be an argument or did I make it an argument may have made it appear to be an argument by making its arguments. 304 00:31:34,270 --> 00:31:40,970 Yes. And therefore, it became an argument or rather, you started to see that it was an argument. 305 00:31:40,970 --> 00:31:47,750 Is that right? So objective and subjective. 306 00:31:47,750 --> 00:31:55,370 When I used to teach undergraduates, I used to say that I wouldn't let me use those words until their third year because they're very difficult words. 307 00:31:55,370 --> 00:32:02,720 And the reason they're very different, difficult words is because there are objective facts about subjective things. 308 00:32:02,720 --> 00:32:06,170 If you think of the subject of state as the state of the subject, 309 00:32:06,170 --> 00:32:11,560 state happiness or something like that, then there are objective facts about such states. 310 00:32:11,560 --> 00:32:16,220 I mean, either you are happy. No, you're not. That's a bad example, actually. 311 00:32:16,220 --> 00:32:22,100 Happiness anyway. See what I mean? I guess I will reject an argument because I say OK. 312 00:32:22,100 --> 00:32:25,430 I don't think it's not. What do you mean? 313 00:32:25,430 --> 00:32:29,900 It's not about avoiding a word? That's. I was just going to make that distinction. 314 00:32:29,900 --> 00:32:39,250 Okay. Two questions you might ask. That isn't an argument or that isn't a good argument. 315 00:32:39,250 --> 00:32:48,770 Clearly, you can make a distinction that claim whether the person making it. 316 00:32:48,770 --> 00:32:54,020 That's an interesting one. If you mind, I'd leave that on one side because I'll think about what I think about that. 317 00:32:54,020 --> 00:33:00,710 I'm not sure of a feeling you say, yes, it is, 318 00:33:00,710 --> 00:33:07,020 but then you'd have to provide the context which would make it clear to the other person that it's an argument. 319 00:33:07,020 --> 00:33:11,570 OK, let's move on, because we we're sorry for your thoughts. John, please. 320 00:33:11,570 --> 00:33:17,840 Please. What did he say? Oh, that's not an argument. 321 00:33:17,840 --> 00:33:23,990 Indeed, he did say that. That's right. That's not an argument. And what he meant by that is that's just a contradiction. 322 00:33:23,990 --> 00:33:27,830 You have just two sentences, one which contradicts the other. 323 00:33:27,830 --> 00:33:32,630 That's not an argument. And that's an argument against. But it's not arguing against the truth. 324 00:33:32,630 --> 00:33:39,350 This is this is the argument gets the truth of that same argument. Oh, clarity of thought. 325 00:33:39,350 --> 00:33:44,300 It's wonderful. All right. Let's move on. OK. 326 00:33:44,300 --> 00:33:49,980 There are often words that suggest the successive sentences as an argument. 327 00:33:49,980 --> 00:33:55,880 When we looked at these and we saw that you so wanted to because in there, 328 00:33:55,880 --> 00:34:01,040 because that would have convinced you it was an argument, should it have done? 329 00:34:01,040 --> 00:34:08,370 No, not necessarily, because it does sometimes inflame an argument, but not always. 330 00:34:08,370 --> 00:34:16,340 Okay. Where's the argument word in this one. 331 00:34:16,340 --> 00:34:21,410 Okay, what about that one. So yeah. 332 00:34:21,410 --> 00:34:30,380 OK, can you give me any more if ah if that is a difficult one. 333 00:34:30,380 --> 00:34:34,610 The answer is. Well I tell I'll talk about that in a minute. 334 00:34:34,610 --> 00:34:40,520 I will put it on one side because you've got to see this Greenbush between implication and entitlements. 335 00:34:40,520 --> 00:34:43,970 But we'll do that in a minute. Hence is a good one. 336 00:34:43,970 --> 00:34:48,320 Yeah. Even given that then. Yeah. 337 00:34:48,320 --> 00:34:55,910 Then there's another one that's a bit iffy actually. Therefore is very definitely an argument word. 338 00:34:55,910 --> 00:35:01,550 Yeah. And since that is that there are words that we consequently. 339 00:35:01,550 --> 00:35:03,740 Yeah. OK, let's leave that. So. 340 00:35:03,740 --> 00:35:11,140 So firstly we've, we've said what an argument is and we've said how to distinguish an argument from a set of sentences. 341 00:35:11,140 --> 00:35:18,800 But we've also got to distinguish an argument from an assertion, just a straightforward assertion. 342 00:35:18,800 --> 00:35:25,370 Okay. An argument is a set of sentences, just one of which is being asserted. 343 00:35:25,370 --> 00:35:30,230 Okay. And this session is a single sentence, possibly a complex sentence. 344 00:35:30,230 --> 00:35:35,210 It might be Marans wearing jeans. And it's Friday. So that's one sentence. 345 00:35:35,210 --> 00:35:42,050 Conjoined with a sentence conjunction the. And that's being expressed in at its esoteric or. 346 00:35:42,050 --> 00:35:49,360 So which of these sentences are or could be assertions. 347 00:35:49,360 --> 00:35:57,670 Number one, only number one. Exactly, so I say it could be because, of course, it could be said, I could say the room is hot. 348 00:35:57,670 --> 00:36:01,990 That's Australian intonation. That makes it a question. Do you see what I mean? 349 00:36:01,990 --> 00:36:08,500 So so I could ask the question in the form of words that would usually be used for Asatru. 350 00:36:08,500 --> 00:36:13,780 So, again, remember, that language is something we use and we can use it in all sorts of different ways. 351 00:36:13,780 --> 00:36:19,360 But this is a this sentence has interrogative force, doesn't it, is the root cause. 352 00:36:19,360 --> 00:36:28,990 And this has imperative force turn the heat up. That's one is being used as authority, not the others. 353 00:36:28,990 --> 00:36:34,430 Some assertions and this will pick up the point you were making there. Looks very like arguments. 354 00:36:34,430 --> 00:36:43,600 If it's snowing, the mail will be late. Okay, so you might think that this is an argument because it's an if then sentence. 355 00:36:43,600 --> 00:36:50,020 Why isn't that an argument? Can anyone tell me story? 356 00:36:50,020 --> 00:36:59,310 Well done. Yes, it is its assertion that certain markets may not always be true. 357 00:36:59,310 --> 00:37:03,030 Okay. You say brother it good. Okay. 358 00:37:03,030 --> 00:37:07,500 All we asserting it is snowing. No. 359 00:37:07,500 --> 00:37:12,280 Always searching the mail will be late. No. Always assessing. 360 00:37:12,280 --> 00:37:18,280 If it snowed, the mail will be late. Yes. So there's only one sentence there isn't there. 361 00:37:18,280 --> 00:37:22,660 It happens to be complex. It's a it's a sentence. 362 00:37:22,660 --> 00:37:28,930 That's the sub centennial. Parts are themselves intentional. 363 00:37:28,930 --> 00:37:33,580 But it's not an argument because it doesn't satisfy the description, does it? 364 00:37:33,580 --> 00:37:40,300 It doesn't satisfy the the claim that there must be a sentence that's being put forward is true and 365 00:37:40,300 --> 00:37:45,670 other sentences that have been put forward to support the claim that that one sentence is true. 366 00:37:45,670 --> 00:37:50,710 So that's an entail. Sorry, that's an implication. 367 00:37:50,710 --> 00:37:59,170 Not an entailment. Okay. So that it's no implies mail will be late. 368 00:37:59,170 --> 00:38:08,470 It doesn't entail that the mail won't be late. Questions like the. 369 00:38:08,470 --> 00:38:13,190 What does make it ungrammatical, actually? Therefore, it is snowing, the mail will be late. 370 00:38:13,190 --> 00:38:25,730 Sorry. No thanks. Was the other way that. That would make it an argument because the therefore signals entailment, then kind of signal entailment. 371 00:38:25,730 --> 00:38:32,810 But it doesn't automatically. But therefore, we're going to say something very rash. 372 00:38:32,810 --> 00:38:39,140 They therefore always does. And I may be right about that. OK. 373 00:38:39,140 --> 00:38:52,580 So we need to distinguish things like that from arguments and now we get on to the bit that's been worrying around the central room here. 374 00:38:52,580 --> 00:38:57,200 OK. Think about assertions. Is the like the true or false? OK. 375 00:38:57,200 --> 00:39:04,340 Now, this is an interesting thing. There are only two sorts of things that can be true or false in this world. 376 00:39:04,340 --> 00:39:09,470 One of them is beliefs. Beliefs are either true or false. 377 00:39:09,470 --> 00:39:15,070 And the other is the sentences that we use to express beliefs. 378 00:39:15,070 --> 00:39:21,980 OK. So if I believe that the chair is blue, I can express that belief in the sentence. 379 00:39:21,980 --> 00:39:30,680 The chair is blue and both the belief and the sentence used to express it can be either true or false. 380 00:39:30,680 --> 00:39:37,980 Are you with me? Can you think of anything else that can be true or false? 381 00:39:37,980 --> 00:39:41,990 No. Facts are what make sentences true or false. 382 00:39:41,990 --> 00:39:45,980 They are not themselves true or false. They just exist or don't exist. 383 00:39:45,980 --> 00:39:52,370 So the fact that that chair is blue makes true the sentence. 384 00:39:52,370 --> 00:40:01,880 That chair is blue. It would make her hair long. 385 00:40:01,880 --> 00:40:07,610 When you say that, you say. What about that fact or that sentence? 386 00:40:07,610 --> 00:40:12,780 So that sentence. Well, that's not true or false, isn't it? 387 00:40:12,780 --> 00:40:17,880 I mean, if you. I mean. 388 00:40:17,880 --> 00:40:23,460 Let me just point out some ambiguity. What's your name? Piana said. 389 00:40:23,460 --> 00:40:34,910 What about. What did you say? Harrumphs Blonde hair is blonde. 390 00:40:34,910 --> 00:40:44,030 If I put it like that, I'm talking about the fact onsite. Whereas if I took it to that, I'm now talking about the sentence. 391 00:40:44,030 --> 00:40:49,850 Right. If I take those out again, that's not the sort of thing can be that can be true, 392 00:40:49,850 --> 00:40:56,780 because the fact that someone's hair is blonde, that her hair is long makes true the senses. 393 00:40:56,780 --> 00:41:01,310 Her hair is blonde with me. Difficult stuff. 394 00:41:01,310 --> 00:41:10,910 Philosophy, isn't it? But but the really nice thing is that if you persevere with logic, you two will be able to do things like this. 395 00:41:10,910 --> 00:41:18,540 You know, these distinctions are there to be made. Do you just need the clarity of thought to be able to make them as facts? 396 00:41:18,540 --> 00:41:23,220 I just always true facts aren't true at all. 397 00:41:23,220 --> 00:41:35,240 Facts of what makes sentence's true facts either facts, if you like, and combinations of things or events or things or properties and events. 398 00:41:35,240 --> 00:41:40,130 So if you think it's something like her hair is blonde, that's a fact. 399 00:41:40,130 --> 00:41:46,750 OK. Her hair is being blonde. Her jacket's being green. 400 00:41:46,750 --> 00:41:52,970 Is a green. Yeah. I think it might say whether that's a fact or not. 401 00:41:52,970 --> 00:41:59,450 We're not really sure it's a story that is a fact of the matter, which is the story. 402 00:41:59,450 --> 00:42:04,280 I definitely believe that Diane is Jacobins reading. 403 00:42:04,280 --> 00:42:14,180 These are facts which either exist or not. I mean, some people might say that that's not a fact, that Diana's jacket is great. 404 00:42:14,180 --> 00:42:22,280 The sentence that expresses that, the belief that that's a fact is false. 405 00:42:22,280 --> 00:42:25,710 Sorry I lost myself in the beginning of that sentence. 406 00:42:25,710 --> 00:42:39,840 The sentence in my report, which is based in fact, in that sense, that sentence refers to a fact, if you like, 407 00:42:39,840 --> 00:42:48,020 even that which is relevant in that context, simply argue that the question was, oh, I see it referred to a potential factor. 408 00:42:48,020 --> 00:42:51,680 Putative fact. Yes, that's right. Yes, of course. I know. 409 00:42:51,680 --> 00:42:57,200 That's a thank you. That's a very good point to make, because if I say something false. 410 00:42:57,200 --> 00:43:00,710 What makes it false? It's a fact. But. But it's not the fact. 411 00:43:00,710 --> 00:43:14,150 So if I say that Charles Black. The fact of the chairs not being black is what makes that juice. 412 00:43:14,150 --> 00:43:19,430 It gets difficult, as you can see. But the thing to remember is this. 413 00:43:19,430 --> 00:43:23,750 There are three different levels that we very important. 414 00:43:23,750 --> 00:43:26,450 You have to keep separate in thinking clearly. 415 00:43:26,450 --> 00:43:36,100 And of course, all critical reasoning involves clarity of thought that these levels are the level of language. 416 00:43:36,100 --> 00:43:42,820 Fault. And the thing I always call reality. 417 00:43:42,820 --> 00:43:47,620 But that's that's wrong because, of course, language and thoughts are real. 418 00:43:47,620 --> 00:43:52,060 So. So that's completely wrong. But I keep using it that way. 419 00:43:52,060 --> 00:43:59,550 So if I put down Red Oak and I put quotes around so that you make it clear, make it clear that today is a word. 420 00:43:59,550 --> 00:44:06,140 OK, it's a linguistic item. Then there's the concept red, OK. 421 00:44:06,140 --> 00:44:12,700 It's when I think that is read. OK, I'm using the concept read. 422 00:44:12,700 --> 00:44:20,860 And then there's redness, the property. So these three things are quite different from each other, aren't they? 423 00:44:20,860 --> 00:44:27,020 So if I say this is has the property of being red. 424 00:44:27,020 --> 00:44:36,030 OK. I'm talking about this. And if I'm thinking about this pen as being red, then I'm exercising my concept of red. 425 00:44:36,030 --> 00:44:42,040 And if I see this hand is red, then I'm using the word red notice in French. 426 00:44:42,040 --> 00:44:47,800 It would be a different word, wouldn't it? But the same concept on the same property. 427 00:44:47,800 --> 00:44:52,220 So there's an arbitrary element in language. Isn't that the other two? 428 00:44:52,220 --> 00:44:57,490 So what's the French then? I think. 429 00:44:57,490 --> 00:45:03,850 I'm glad I use red. Not something else. I'm sorry. 430 00:45:03,850 --> 00:45:09,670 Could you speak of the red? I mean, he made my people. 431 00:45:09,670 --> 00:45:14,240 Is that this is metaphysics one day one. 432 00:45:14,240 --> 00:45:19,920 They can't be true. 433 00:45:19,920 --> 00:45:27,910 It's all true. Go to different people. 434 00:45:27,910 --> 00:45:36,630 Right. Okay. That's what you're talking about here in terms of facts and truths and so on. 435 00:45:36,630 --> 00:45:45,300 Okay. What you're suggesting is that what I see is Red Mike might see as green or something else. 436 00:45:45,300 --> 00:45:50,220 Okay. So what we're saying is, why isn't anyone wearing red? Will somebody please come next time wearing red? 437 00:45:50,220 --> 00:45:57,070 Maybe it makes it much easier. There's legate that we here in the middle there. 438 00:45:57,070 --> 00:46:02,560 So when I look at stuff like what's your name? Hildegard. 439 00:46:02,560 --> 00:46:11,980 Right. Okay. When I look at Hildegard Structured ICP, I see it looks like that might look at it. 440 00:46:11,980 --> 00:46:20,070 It looks different. Okay. It appears differently to mine. So if I would say that jacket is pink. 441 00:46:20,070 --> 00:46:23,860 Of course, Mike would also say it's pink. Okay. 442 00:46:23,860 --> 00:46:28,040 The pink is different for Mike. This is for me. That's what your. 443 00:46:28,040 --> 00:46:37,270 Where are you. That's what you say. Okay, take it. Let's put it red, because then you can use those colours. 444 00:46:37,270 --> 00:46:43,480 It's not like you're going to say. Something like that isn't it. 445 00:46:43,480 --> 00:46:51,040 Yeah. Shall we not get into that. Isn't that a fact. 446 00:46:51,040 --> 00:46:57,500 And then. Well let's let's make a very important distinction between epistemology and metaphysics here. 447 00:46:57,500 --> 00:47:01,300 There's one question which is, is something a fact? 448 00:47:01,300 --> 00:47:09,850 And there's another question. Do we know it's a fact? Okay, so let's talk about it is pink as a fact. 449 00:47:09,850 --> 00:47:15,330 OK. Rather than do we know it's a fact? 450 00:47:15,330 --> 00:47:19,420 Valenstein showed us. There's actually the question. Could we see it differently? 451 00:47:19,420 --> 00:47:23,780 Is actually a normal question. The answer is if. 452 00:47:23,780 --> 00:47:28,510 Oh, no. This is getting too complicated. It's going to take us too far away from. 453 00:47:28,510 --> 00:47:38,570 I'm sorry. I don't want to tease you with this, but I've just realised what I was about to get into trying to clarify what you mean by definition. 454 00:47:38,570 --> 00:47:47,590 For me, a belief is untruthful. I mean, I didn't believe some of you can just believe that. 455 00:47:47,590 --> 00:47:51,540 How could you do that? I don't. Oh, right. 456 00:47:51,540 --> 00:47:57,370 Okay. You're using beliefs in a word, in a way that lots of people do. 457 00:47:57,370 --> 00:48:02,710 So actually, I'm very glad you brought this up. People think of beliefs as things that you can't prove. 458 00:48:02,710 --> 00:48:08,470 So you have either before you have knowledge. Well, that's not how we use the word belief in philosophy. 459 00:48:08,470 --> 00:48:21,310 A belief is something you postulate an explanation of someone's behaviour or it's something you put forward as true or as false. 460 00:48:21,310 --> 00:48:26,350 And it's certainly not the case that there's something you can't prove. I mean, there are many beliefs that we can prove. 461 00:48:26,350 --> 00:48:31,240 I mean, just his. 462 00:48:31,240 --> 00:48:34,730 I believe that two plus two is four. And I dare that you. 463 00:48:34,730 --> 00:48:40,070 Wouldn't want me to even attempt to prove that, because you believe it, too. 464 00:48:40,070 --> 00:48:46,710 Is that reasonable? Okay, so here's a belief that we can. 465 00:48:46,710 --> 00:48:50,360 That we believe is conclusive. True. 466 00:48:50,360 --> 00:48:56,350 So so we do what we believe to be religious belief or something like that. 467 00:48:56,350 --> 00:49:07,940 Look, this is what is it? If we give back to this, let's use chair concepts of chess and chair. 468 00:49:07,940 --> 00:49:13,680 Yes, sir. The chair is something I can draw. 469 00:49:13,680 --> 00:49:19,540 OK. I can't draw the concept of a chair. I can only entertain it. 470 00:49:19,540 --> 00:49:27,430 And I can say Chair has five letters. See what I mean? 471 00:49:27,430 --> 00:49:34,610 OK. Chairs exist. Now, that's a fact which I didn't think about. 472 00:49:34,610 --> 00:49:38,900 Do chairs exist? Barclays said the chairs didn't exist. 473 00:49:38,900 --> 00:49:46,400 Accepters perception's in my mind. And of course, I can then talk about what I'm thinking about. 474 00:49:46,400 --> 00:49:57,230 So the fact that chairs exist. If indeed it isn't, that is something we can think about and talk about. 475 00:49:57,230 --> 00:50:05,400 Do you see the distinction? You may not feel confident in using it at the moment, but that's just a matter of practise. 476 00:50:05,400 --> 00:50:08,420 It's if we confuse these three levels, 477 00:50:08,420 --> 00:50:17,960 we will not think clearly because you might end up thinking like a concept chair has five letters or concepts that have any lessons, actually. 478 00:50:17,960 --> 00:50:22,740 Or you might think chairs have five letters. Well, actually, chairs don't have any lessons. 479 00:50:22,740 --> 00:50:27,170 It doesn't make sense. The thing the chairs are being mean is see what I mean? 480 00:50:27,170 --> 00:50:39,350 Keep these. So going back to this one. If I said this junk is loud. 481 00:50:39,350 --> 00:50:48,800 What would you think? This jug is loud. I would wonder if intervenor in a different context. 482 00:50:48,800 --> 00:50:54,620 Well, I need to be perfectly reasonable for you to beat it. I think that's because actually that doesn't make any sense. 483 00:50:54,620 --> 00:50:59,750 That sentence does it, because jugs of the sort of thing that can be loud. 484 00:50:59,750 --> 00:51:06,410 Okay. But it's just not. It would have to be metaphorical. I'd have to be being poetic or something like that, or I would just not. 485 00:51:06,410 --> 00:51:12,500 I would be displaying my misunderstandings were loud or the misunderstanding of the words John. 486 00:51:12,500 --> 00:51:21,800 Is that right? Yeah. When you say that argument is false, you display the fact that you don't understand either. 487 00:51:21,800 --> 00:51:31,350 The words are the arguments or false. There's arguments can't be true or false. 488 00:51:31,350 --> 00:51:35,720 Arguments can only be good or bad. They can be valid or invalid. 489 00:51:35,720 --> 00:51:38,360 They can't be true or false. 490 00:51:38,360 --> 00:51:47,270 And that's because it's the only things that are true or false or beliefs or sentences the sentences that express beliefs. 491 00:51:47,270 --> 00:51:54,420 Now, in general, everyday talk, we do talk about arguments being true or false. 492 00:51:54,420 --> 00:52:02,150 You know, everybody does that. But if you want to learn how to reason, if you want to learn how to think clearly about arguments, 493 00:52:02,150 --> 00:52:06,350 you must stop doing that because arguments can't be false. 494 00:52:06,350 --> 00:52:10,730 What is it for a belief to be false? If I if I talk. 495 00:52:10,730 --> 00:52:14,690 What if I suppose Mike is tall? OK. 496 00:52:14,690 --> 00:52:19,140 What is it for that belief to be false. Small the. 497 00:52:19,140 --> 00:52:26,750 But the thing is, I mean by Mike to not be in the in the class of things, that's a tool. 498 00:52:26,750 --> 00:52:31,010 Is that right. And arguments are six of sentences. 499 00:52:31,010 --> 00:52:44,900 You can't evaluate them in that way. Can you say, though, that there's a form of argument that is the truth, reserving all arguments, 500 00:52:44,900 --> 00:52:53,870 truth preserving or these all good arguments in truth, preserving, because the truth of the premises is preserved in the truth of the conclusion. 501 00:52:53,870 --> 00:52:58,880 So it's silly to say that's not true. And we'll talk about that later on. 502 00:52:58,880 --> 00:53:06,360 I'll say it's true, but we're not saying it's true. We say it's truth. Preserving knowledge is a different thing entirely. 503 00:53:06,360 --> 00:53:08,810 OK. Do we understand this? 504 00:53:08,810 --> 00:53:23,030 This is crucially important because to understand what truth is, is to see that it is predicated only of sentences and beliefs, not of arguments. 505 00:53:23,030 --> 00:53:30,560 And to understand what an argument is, is to see that it can't be true or false. 506 00:53:30,560 --> 00:53:42,020 I think you can see that with the argument about the wood and the witches. And you can see what that it can't be that it was a valid organ. 507 00:53:42,020 --> 00:53:48,750 Right. Why doesn't that differentiated from from truth? 508 00:53:48,750 --> 00:53:58,320 The truth is only contained in that argument. Nobody would say that a witch is made of wood unless you wanted to store. 509 00:53:58,320 --> 00:54:04,850 But in terms of the way your argument is constructed. Reasonable as well. 510 00:54:04,850 --> 00:54:13,320 Yeah. I'm not sure how to unpack what you're saying here, except to say that that's a. 511 00:54:13,320 --> 00:54:17,160 Oh, yes. Not no. That was an argument. 512 00:54:17,160 --> 00:54:25,140 It's an argument because we're saying that that is true and we're offering his reasons for believing it's truth. 513 00:54:25,140 --> 00:54:30,610 The truth of that and the truth of that. 514 00:54:30,610 --> 00:54:35,640 OK. So the argument itself is a good one. 515 00:54:35,640 --> 00:54:39,900 And you use the word valid to, well, get on to valid at some point next week has a bit. 516 00:54:39,900 --> 00:54:44,610 So that's that's the argument itself. 517 00:54:44,610 --> 00:54:54,670 Can't be true or false. But the sentences that constitute the arguments can, of course, be either true or false. 518 00:54:54,670 --> 00:54:59,820 So if the sentences are false, does it make up? 519 00:54:59,820 --> 00:55:06,840 Well, that that's a very important number. Come to that later. So there's that sentence actually contain three assertions. 520 00:55:06,840 --> 00:55:11,030 It contains three sentences, each of which could be used as an assertion. 521 00:55:11,030 --> 00:55:16,560 In order for a sense of severe recession, it's got to be asserted. And I'm not really asserting this. 522 00:55:16,560 --> 00:55:26,530 I'm just talking about it. But yeah, so we have three potential assertions, each of which is either true or false. 523 00:55:26,530 --> 00:55:34,350 And together they make up the arguments because two are being offered as reasons for believing the truth of the other. 524 00:55:34,350 --> 00:55:45,570 Right. OK. A good argument. This is coming on to your point now, A, that a good argument must have at least two characteristics. 525 00:55:45,570 --> 00:55:50,520 Actually, it needs many more than two characteristics. But there are two that we're really interested in. 526 00:55:50,520 --> 00:55:54,880 These are the two. The conclusion was follow from the premises. 527 00:55:54,880 --> 00:55:59,100 Okay. And the premises must all be true. Okay. 528 00:55:59,100 --> 00:56:05,010 If both those things are true, you've got a good argument. 529 00:56:05,010 --> 00:56:11,760 If one of these things if the conclusion doesn't follow, then even if the premises are true, 530 00:56:11,760 --> 00:56:17,760 you haven't got a convincing argument or if the premise is not true. 531 00:56:17,760 --> 00:56:27,990 And even though the conclusion follows that you haven't got a good argument in that way because the premise is false. 532 00:56:27,990 --> 00:56:35,370 But having said that, we're interested only in argument in this session. 533 00:56:35,370 --> 00:56:38,880 We're not actually interested in the truth of the premises at all. 534 00:56:38,880 --> 00:56:47,010 We're interested only in the whether the arguments follow from sorry, whether a conclusion follows from the premises. 535 00:56:47,010 --> 00:56:54,630 So as logicians generally, and we're not in the business of going out in the world to see where the premises are true or false, 536 00:56:54,630 --> 00:56:58,650 we're only in the business of seeing whether the relation between the premises and 537 00:56:58,650 --> 00:57:04,140 the conclusion is such that they are the conclusion follows from the premises. 538 00:57:04,140 --> 00:57:10,540 And as we'll see next week, there are loads of different ways in which conclusions can follow from premises. 539 00:57:10,540 --> 00:57:18,420 But so I would often talk about an arguments being good, even though the premises. 540 00:57:18,420 --> 00:57:22,350 I mean, let's take this one. Okay. 541 00:57:22,350 --> 00:57:28,650 That's a good argument or not. Yeah. Yeah, it's good in the logicians sense, isn't it? 542 00:57:28,650 --> 00:57:32,820 I mean, actually the premises are all false. Saldate, they're both false. 543 00:57:32,820 --> 00:57:37,890 There are only two premises of this argument that they are false. It's not Friday, it's Monday. 544 00:57:37,890 --> 00:57:41,930 And Marijan always wears jeans on Fridays also false. 545 00:57:41,930 --> 00:57:47,100 No, let's take it from me. So that's not a good argument from the point of view of the premises. 546 00:57:47,100 --> 00:57:53,340 But as far as a magician is concerned, that is a good argument because the conclusion follows from the premises. 547 00:57:53,340 --> 00:58:00,120 Okay. So if we were actually using that argument to say anything, we'd want the premises to be true as well. 548 00:58:00,120 --> 00:58:07,580 But as we're just talking about the arguments in order to say what is a good argument, what isn't a good argument, that will do. 549 00:58:07,580 --> 00:58:14,790 If that is if that's a conclusive argument. If the premises of true there, the conclusion would have to be true. 550 00:58:14,790 --> 00:58:24,780 So it's a very good argument. So let's look in the premises. 551 00:58:24,780 --> 00:58:29,630 No, because if the premises of the true here, the conclusion would have to be true, wouldn't it? 552 00:58:29,630 --> 00:58:35,700 Well, which is something. Well, but not Matthew died for a variety. 553 00:58:35,700 --> 00:58:40,470 Well, then it wouldn't be true that mine was worth Judeans. 554 00:58:40,470 --> 00:58:44,520 Or I would say mine always wore jeans on a Friday. Maybe. 555 00:58:44,520 --> 00:58:51,950 OK. What do you mean? I don't I'm not sure. 556 00:58:51,950 --> 00:59:00,730 Did people wear jeans at all? What is true is that the facts is true. 557 00:59:00,730 --> 00:59:04,390 If if this actually you're asking a huge philosophical question there. 558 00:59:04,390 --> 00:59:08,460 But let me just say, yes, this is a fact that makes this sentence true. 559 00:59:08,460 --> 00:59:12,300 That it's true. Oh, Co. 560 00:59:12,300 --> 00:59:20,930 I said that. That's awful. But then why do you say you can't always say that you always wear jeans on Friday. 561 00:59:20,930 --> 00:59:29,690 Oil. Well, I finally settled by Friday, as he put it, right? 562 00:59:29,690 --> 00:59:39,590 You say. You always were. This is your the hyperbolic. 563 00:59:39,590 --> 00:59:42,630 We're going to be looking at next week, which is to be inducted, 564 00:59:42,630 --> 00:59:51,200 arguments that inductive arguments always take this further than we can actually go by claiming something like swans are always white. 565 00:59:51,200 --> 00:59:59,900 Marion always wears jeans on the Friday. But but you can still say that fun. 566 00:59:59,900 --> 01:00:07,130 We are not going to get into knowledge. The philosophy of non-violence is definitely not on this curriculum. 567 01:00:07,130 --> 01:00:15,810 Okay, going back to what I was saying that. 568 01:00:15,810 --> 01:00:24,730 OK, so you understand the difference between the truth of the premiss and the conclusions following from the the premises, 569 01:00:24,730 --> 01:00:32,680 that that's the important thing. And it's because what makes an argument good is that the conclusion follows from the premises 570 01:00:32,680 --> 01:00:38,590 that you've got to distinguish the goodness of an argument from the truth of the premises. 571 01:00:38,590 --> 01:00:46,300 Truth, just because truth is a good thing and validity says is a good thing, doesn't make them the same thing. 572 01:00:46,300 --> 01:00:51,430 That's the important thing. We mustn't just take validity as a sort of general probe word. 573 01:00:51,430 --> 01:00:56,310 And in the same way, truth isn't just a general probe word. 574 01:00:56,310 --> 01:01:00,500 OK. Let's look at these arguments. OK. One of them is good. One of them is bad. 575 01:01:00,500 --> 01:01:20,540 Don't call out, but just have a look at them yourselves and decide which is the good one and which is the bad one. 576 01:01:20,540 --> 01:01:37,690 Who's decided? All right, time. 577 01:01:37,690 --> 01:01:44,270 OK. Who's decided, OK, that's a good argument. 578 01:01:44,270 --> 01:01:48,480 Yes. Yes, that's a good argument. Well done. Yes. 579 01:01:48,480 --> 01:01:53,940 Absolute. That needs councillor's class. No, you're absolutely right. 580 01:01:53,940 --> 01:02:01,570 This is a deductive argument. It gives us absolute certainty in the following sense if these premises. 581 01:02:01,570 --> 01:02:06,720 And I'll read out the premises if it's Monday. The lecture will finish at three thirty. 582 01:02:06,720 --> 01:02:11,070 It is Monday. Therefore, the lecture will finish at three thirty. 583 01:02:11,070 --> 01:02:17,300 If these premises are both true, this conclusion would have to be true, wouldn't it? 584 01:02:17,300 --> 01:02:21,630 It couldn't be false. If those two premises are both true. 585 01:02:21,630 --> 01:02:31,650 So the truth of the premises is preserved in the truth of the conclusion that you couldn't have those two premises. 586 01:02:31,650 --> 01:02:40,570 True, that conclusion not. So if you believe those two premises, rationally speaking, you must believe that conclusion. 587 01:02:40,570 --> 01:02:43,620 Okay, that's what it is to be a rational animal. 588 01:02:43,620 --> 01:02:52,530 And if instead I say you're wasting your time with these lectures, if you knew that, of course, that's nonsense because you're all rational animals. 589 01:02:52,530 --> 01:02:54,100 You have to be rational animals. 590 01:02:54,100 --> 01:03:00,750 And you wouldn't be here if you were because you sold off the leaflets or whatever you saw and you thought, that sounds interesting. 591 01:03:00,750 --> 01:03:04,980 I would like to go to that lecture. That lecture starts at two o'clock on Monday the other day. 592 01:03:04,980 --> 01:03:09,120 This is at the moment. Therefore, I will go to that lecture hall. 593 01:03:09,120 --> 01:03:12,060 Did you not? You had loads of reasons. 594 01:03:12,060 --> 01:03:19,080 So we're talking theoretical arguments here, but of course, actually arguments the most proactive, practical thing in the world. 595 01:03:19,080 --> 01:03:26,370 Your piece of practical reasoning led you here. So each one of you is rational. 596 01:03:26,370 --> 01:03:34,010 What we're doing in these lectures is learning how to explicate all capacity for reason. 597 01:03:34,010 --> 01:03:39,100 Okay. You know, whether a conclusion follows from premises or not. 598 01:03:39,100 --> 01:03:44,340 That's why when you argue in the past with your sons, daughters, wives or whoever, you know, 599 01:03:44,340 --> 01:03:50,070 whether you've what you're hearing is a good argument or not, you can there's something wrong with that argument. 600 01:03:50,070 --> 01:03:55,560 You say, as you read the leader in the newspapers, you see the person on television or something like that, 601 01:03:55,560 --> 01:04:02,160 something that's out of your intuitions or your rational intuitions are telling you what you need to know. 602 01:04:02,160 --> 01:04:10,890 But what you're doing in these courses is learning how to make explicit your intuitions, what what your intuitions are telling you. 603 01:04:10,890 --> 01:04:14,310 OK. So your intuitions tell you quite categorically that that's a good idea. 604 01:04:14,310 --> 01:04:20,130 That's part of what's wrong with this one. That's is good for me. 605 01:04:20,130 --> 01:04:25,740 At the same time, an area that is not specific. Yes. 606 01:04:25,740 --> 01:04:30,090 Okay. Everything I heard there is is is good. The fact is that. 607 01:04:30,090 --> 01:04:38,770 OK. Let me ask you a question. Could it be the case that these two premises are true and yet this conclusion falls? 608 01:04:38,770 --> 01:04:43,230 OK. Can anyone give me a counterexample to this argument? 609 01:04:43,230 --> 01:04:50,820 Let me read them out again. The people who can't hear. If it's Monday, the lecture will finish at three thirty. 610 01:04:50,820 --> 01:04:55,990 The lecture will finish at three thirty. Therefore, it's Monday. 611 01:04:55,990 --> 01:05:00,420 OK. Can anyone give me a counterexample to that argument? 612 01:05:00,420 --> 01:05:07,080 A situation in which both those premises are true and that conclusion is false. 613 01:05:07,080 --> 01:05:13,080 A situation in which both those premises are true and that conclusion is false. 614 01:05:13,080 --> 01:05:16,800 The election on Tuesday. Assuming this is true. Good. 615 01:05:16,800 --> 01:05:23,330 Well done. Oh, Wednesday, Thursday. Friday. Exactly. This says if it's Monday, intellectual finish at three thirty. 616 01:05:23,330 --> 01:05:30,780 This merely says the lecturer will finish at three thirty. It could be Monday, but it might not be OK. 617 01:05:30,780 --> 01:05:35,760 So there is a situation in which both these premises are true and this conclusion is false. 618 01:05:35,760 --> 01:05:39,210 Therefore, this is a bad argument. It's an invalid argument. 619 01:05:39,210 --> 01:05:44,900 It's actually an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent figures. 620 01:05:44,900 --> 01:05:49,040 Do you see that the act, the let the lectures, the arguments about whether they are. 621 01:05:49,040 --> 01:05:59,500 They look very similar, but of course they're not because this one's taken the antecedent as the second premise and this one seeking the consequence. 622 01:05:59,500 --> 01:06:05,550 Thus the second premise. And we'll be learning a lot more about fallacies later on in the course. 623 01:06:05,550 --> 01:06:11,720 But that's it for today. Next week, we're going to look at the all the different sorts of argument. 624 01:06:11,720 --> 01:06:16,710 They the arguments. They're all on how to distinguish them from each other. 625 01:06:16,710 --> 01:06:21,970 And then we're going to get on to learning how to set them out properly and how to evaluate them. 626 01:06:21,970 --> 01:06:32,590 OK, we've got courtroom now for four questions. If you haven't got a car path. 627 01:06:32,590 --> 01:06:39,310 No, that's easy. You can try three Heysel. 628 01:06:39,310 --> 01:06:43,990 Might be. But I doubt it. Who is this? 629 01:06:43,990 --> 01:06:51,520 Barkley falls and turns in the. And what did decision? 630 01:06:51,520 --> 01:06:58,810 He didn't think a chair is a new concept. It was Bishop Berkeley, George Berkeley, who lived. 631 01:06:58,810 --> 01:07:10,270 I don't know where he lived. I'm sorry, I didn't remember dates. And he believes that our only reason for believing that something exists is because 632 01:07:10,270 --> 01:07:18,610 we can either see it now or that we could see it under some other circumstances. 633 01:07:18,610 --> 01:07:23,320 So if I claim. Okay. 634 01:07:23,320 --> 01:07:28,200 What makes it true that this left turn exists so we can sit here? 635 01:07:28,200 --> 01:07:38,440 It. We can touch it. All sorts of things. What's more, we also believe that were we to come back tonight at midnight and nobody had moved us. 636 01:07:38,440 --> 01:07:42,490 And so on, all other things being equal, it would still be here. OK. 637 01:07:42,490 --> 01:07:47,470 So there we have an appeal to actual perceptions. Okay. 638 01:07:47,470 --> 01:07:53,620 We can see it now and we've got an appeal to counter factual perceptions. 639 01:07:53,620 --> 01:07:57,730 If we came at 12 o'clock, we would be able to see it. 640 01:07:57,730 --> 01:08:08,650 And Berkeley says, you give me a reason for thinking that anything exists that doesn't depend upon actual or counterfactual perceptions. 641 01:08:08,650 --> 01:08:10,630 Sorry. Let me rephrase that. 642 01:08:10,630 --> 01:08:17,740 You will not be able to give me a reason for thinking that anything exists that doesn't appeal to one or other of those two. 643 01:08:17,740 --> 01:08:28,000 Therefore, if you if something is unconceivable, then you have no reason to think it exists. 644 01:08:28,000 --> 01:08:35,780 Concepts, we experience concepts all the time, and we can we have to exist. 645 01:08:35,780 --> 01:08:40,690 You wouldn't be thinking of a concept is a constituent of a thought. 646 01:08:40,690 --> 01:08:45,340 So as long as you think you think, then you will think in concepts. 647 01:08:45,340 --> 01:08:51,320 And we have reason for thinking concepts exist. Sorry. 648 01:08:51,320 --> 01:08:57,940 Is that the same sort of thing as furphy collapsing in the middle of some forest somewhere here? 649 01:08:57,940 --> 01:09:02,110 Yes. I mean, the fact is, if you were in the forest, you would hear it. 650 01:09:02,110 --> 01:09:08,960 Yes, you might, because Rayburn's is. In other words, you're happy that it would make a noise. 651 01:09:08,960 --> 01:09:16,960 No fuss. I mean, your reason for thinking that noise exists is that you would hear it if you were there. 652 01:09:16,960 --> 01:09:22,370 Said that's a counterfactual perception that you were basing that on. 653 01:09:22,370 --> 01:09:26,630 I mean, what Bulkley is very important. And he's a fascinating philosopher, actually. 654 01:09:26,630 --> 01:09:33,370 He thinks that physical objects are made up of ideas of ours. 655 01:09:33,370 --> 01:09:40,720 This is one of the first idealists. And he doesn't mean that you can put your hand through this because it's an idea. 656 01:09:40,720 --> 01:09:46,510 He just means that my idea of this lectern is an idea made up of part of solidity. 657 01:09:46,510 --> 01:09:53,560 The idea that if I do that, I won't be able to push any further. That's a perception notice. 658 01:09:53,560 --> 01:10:00,310 That's a perception. It's a bundle of perceptions as well. 659 01:10:00,310 --> 01:10:07,170 We only have second-order accounts of everything. 660 01:10:07,170 --> 01:10:15,530 Now, what would I do? So what we see is actually the result of. 661 01:10:15,530 --> 01:10:21,930 It in the brain. This is something that's. Computer that gets translated in seven seconds away. 662 01:10:21,930 --> 01:10:27,330 So there's a kind of, I think, sense data, perhaps so said that we never see the object directly. 663 01:10:27,330 --> 01:10:34,110 We just see the surface. The comments are from, you know, somebody playing on screen. 664 01:10:34,110 --> 01:10:39,510 But there are two ways of thinking about census data. One way is now very old fashioned. 665 01:10:39,510 --> 01:10:48,990 We don't see and that's the way the Russell and Picking started people at that thought, which is that we never see the thing itself. 666 01:10:48,990 --> 01:10:53,940 We only ever see it an idea in our mind. So why would you think that answer? 667 01:10:53,940 --> 01:10:58,530 Because you can never be sure that. I mean, are you really sure that I'm here? 668 01:10:58,530 --> 01:11:06,030 I mean, your reasons for being for believing that I'm here, as you can see me here being sold but couldn't live with you. 669 01:11:06,030 --> 01:11:13,440 Exactly as it is now. And yes, it not to be true that I'm here and I'm all for it. 670 01:11:13,440 --> 01:11:16,560 When you say no. Have you never had a lucid dream? Was it? 671 01:11:16,560 --> 01:11:22,790 You said. Oh, you said. I'm sorry. You said so. 672 01:11:22,790 --> 01:11:29,960 So you don't think that you could have an experience as if I were here doing what I'm doing and yet I'm not here? 673 01:11:29,960 --> 01:11:37,370 You'll probably have to lose tonight. The dream to sincerely Jamie would be one. 674 01:11:37,370 --> 01:11:38,720 But here's another one. 675 01:11:38,720 --> 01:11:51,380 I mean, what makes you what do you think at the moment is that you will have a perceptions as of me and what's causing those perceptions is me. 676 01:11:51,380 --> 01:11:57,110 And what's more, your perceptions are a good guide to what I'm like. 677 01:11:57,110 --> 01:12:16,680 But look. If we talk about the causal relation, if we think that A must cause B or sorry A causes B, we have to know about both A and B, don't we? 678 01:12:16,680 --> 01:12:21,420 We have to see that they're constantly conjoin. They correlated something like that. 679 01:12:21,420 --> 01:12:29,070 We can't. So we've got to be standing here, if you like, to see that they can be correlated. 680 01:12:29,070 --> 01:12:38,400 But if you will think you'll be as a chair and a is your idea of a chair. 681 01:12:38,400 --> 01:12:45,810 And you can't get outside your ideas. And here is where you stand with respect to your perceptions, isn't it? 682 01:12:45,810 --> 01:12:51,800 How can you get outside your perceptions to see what causes them? 683 01:12:51,800 --> 01:12:59,500 You see what I mean, because you've got. In a dream? 684 01:12:59,500 --> 01:13:07,290 Yeah, well, we don't talk about dreams. We talk about it. But with something as objective fact, we have. 685 01:13:07,290 --> 01:13:13,920 These are called change. Movement. 686 01:13:13,920 --> 01:13:24,870 Yes. Let me ask the question again. If we're talking about your idea of a chair, two ideas of the chair concepts to chancel and chairs. 687 01:13:24,870 --> 01:13:34,110 Can you get outside your idea of a chair in order to see that it's caused by a chair? 688 01:13:34,110 --> 01:13:38,060 Now, if it can be put, it mean exactly as it is now. Here I am. 689 01:13:38,060 --> 01:13:42,240 I'm looking at this challenge commission hearing the council's things. 690 01:13:42,240 --> 01:13:50,340 And yes, it's possible that I might be asleep. And that being the chair here, even if I'm asleep, I might want to say something like, 691 01:13:50,340 --> 01:13:57,030 well, I must have experienced a chair before in order to be able to do this. 692 01:13:57,030 --> 01:14:03,480 I could say, well, why should I think in the first place that there is something that's causing my perceptions? 693 01:14:03,480 --> 01:14:12,170 All I've got is my perceptions. I can't get outside my perceptions to adopt this perspective on them. 694 01:14:12,170 --> 01:14:12,960 Can I? 695 01:14:12,960 --> 01:14:22,140 Sir, are you saying you can create the idea of a chair in your mind without actually having seen so maybe it'll be creative and maybe an evil demon. 696 01:14:22,140 --> 01:14:32,280 What I'm giving you is the Cartesian thought experiment and the idea being that if you push what you know to the final degree, 697 01:14:32,280 --> 01:14:39,810 you'll see that actually you're the only reason you believe in the physical universe and things outside yourself, 698 01:14:39,810 --> 01:14:50,880 and that includes your own body is because you assume that your perceptions are caused by something outside yourself, outside your mind, 699 01:14:50,880 --> 01:14:58,710 and that your mind is a good guide to the nature of these things, that if you question both those perceptions, you're left with nothing. 700 01:14:58,710 --> 01:15:04,200 Because what makes you think that there's something outside causing your perceptions? 701 01:15:04,200 --> 01:15:07,890 If all you can see is the perceptions themselves, 702 01:15:07,890 --> 01:15:16,420 rather of the causal relation between your perceptions and whatever's causing them, we can see it this way in critical reasoning. 703 01:15:16,420 --> 01:15:22,020 I know. What is your reaction, control? 704 01:15:22,020 --> 01:15:28,350 What's your damage? If you do something, if the object doesn't do it. 705 01:15:28,350 --> 01:15:32,640 That's right. But all you talk about is one experience after another. 706 01:15:32,640 --> 01:15:38,730 I'll you. I mean, there are some perceptions of mind that obey my will. 707 01:15:38,730 --> 01:15:39,900 And there are other perceptions. 708 01:15:39,900 --> 01:15:48,870 Mind that doomed that chair doesn't to be my will stop that particular perception doesn't have been my well, whereas others do. 709 01:15:48,870 --> 01:15:56,910 I think that I've introduced the Cartesian thought experiment with too little time to convince you. 710 01:15:56,910 --> 01:16:01,250 I mean, you can go away and read the first. Meditation is very easy to read. 711 01:16:01,250 --> 01:16:08,620 It's actually it doesn't take much longer to read them to use against. 712 01:16:08,620 --> 01:16:12,400 Barclays, Barclays, I did. I mean, 713 01:16:12,400 --> 01:16:18,160 the Cartesian thought experiments completely revolutionised philosophy because it 714 01:16:18,160 --> 01:16:24,160 breathalysed revolutionised all belief that we could claim to have knowledge. 715 01:16:24,160 --> 01:16:36,800 Barclay attempted to get over that because if we. Okay, here's the world and here's our mind. 716 01:16:36,800 --> 01:16:46,390 And here's the evil Zimbelman. If Descartes has shown that once this is in place and you see, that could be exactly as it is, 717 01:16:46,390 --> 01:16:52,210 whatever this is like, you need to say something about our knowledge of the external world. 718 01:16:52,210 --> 01:16:59,170 And what Barclays doing is he's remaking the world in the mind. 719 01:16:59,170 --> 01:17:04,900 So if there is nothing more to a physical object than a set of perceptions. 720 01:17:04,900 --> 01:17:13,960 And this the only thing of which we can have knowledge is all perceptions. Then there's no reason why we can't have knowledge of physical objects. 721 01:17:13,960 --> 01:17:23,770 If they are perceptions. So Barclay was trying to show that we do have knowledge despite the Cartesian thought experiment. 722 01:17:23,770 --> 01:17:32,450 Anyway, there is no way we can rely to know more about what has come to another set of lectures. 723 01:17:32,450 --> 01:17:48,030 I see there is time for one more question. If anyone would like to read this one, but this lady has told us many people on the media. 724 01:17:48,030 --> 01:17:55,680 No matter what you do, you know what they're doing. 725 01:17:55,680 --> 01:18:00,670 Well, they're all God's on the. They wouldn't be reading this the short introduction to logic. 726 01:18:00,670 --> 01:18:04,560 This is very interesting. And that's very easy to read. Very short. 727 01:18:04,560 --> 01:18:17,260 So I'll have a go at that. The Hacket book is the only initial on the leaflet, the ones I never read. 728 01:18:17,260 --> 01:18:24,880 OK, well, if you look outside, they'll find you'll find the leaflets a little thing and you should find reading this not just in the book. 729 01:18:24,880 --> 01:18:29,730 Okay. I'm sorry. 730 01:18:29,730 --> 01:18:33,380 Get there. Yes, I know it sounds pretty. 731 01:18:33,380 --> 01:18:38,360 It's very irritating, isn't it? You can get it on Amazon. You get it right. 732 01:18:38,360 --> 01:18:48,600 Yeah, it's it's the reason it's irritating is it's a very good looking for if you can't find the lines and let me know. 733 01:18:48,600 --> 01:18:57,720 You can't try. I can't. 734 01:18:57,720 --> 01:19:02,580 Mistake's by that. Sorry. It's on the business. OK. 735 01:19:02,580 --> 01:19:09,740 I think we'll stop that. Thank you. See you next week.