1
00:00:00,540 --> 00:00:07,770
Hello there. I'm Marianne Tolba, time director of studies in philosophy at Oxford University's Department of Continuing Education.

2
00:00:07,770 --> 00:00:12,120
We're about to start a six week course called Critical Reasoning for Beginners.

3
00:00:12,120 --> 00:00:18,600
And we're going to go through looking at how to recognise an argument. What arguments are the different types of arguments?

4
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:25,860
That's deduction and induction. And we'll be looking at how to set out arguments, logic, books style, how to analyse them.

5
00:00:25,860 --> 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 --> 00:00:42,500
Okay, 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
00:00:42,500 --> 00:00:47,970
Right. Okay, let's get started. You're all here to do critical reasoning.

9
00:00:47,970 --> 00:00:52,410
Okay. Why? Why? Why do you want to do critical reasoning company?

10
00:00:52,410 --> 00:01:00,830
You tell me what she wants. Or what do you think you can't see now that he wants to source.

11
00:01:00,830 --> 00:01:05,190
Shot my sense of argumentation, Shelton, your sexual orientation.

12
00:01:05,190 --> 00:01:10,800
Is there anyone you want to argue with in particular? Policy wise? Yes.

13
00:01:10,800 --> 00:01:19,650
It won't work. You know, you've been married to Bill. I just just turned speaking up, particularly with arguments and debate.

14
00:01:19,650 --> 00:01:25,650
Right. Okay. So I'm gonna live here. Someone detect the flaws in other people's arguments.

15
00:01:25,650 --> 00:01:31,070
You won't be able to detect the flaws in other people's arguments. Okay. What about your own arguments?

16
00:01:31,070 --> 00:01:38,340
Know that, too, because that's very important. These are one of the things I'll talk about today is something called the principle of charity.

17
00:01:38,340 --> 00:01:41,910
And you'll see why. Well, far, that's what I said.

18
00:01:41,910 --> 00:01:46,290
And I want to get lost. That's a valid point.

19
00:01:46,290 --> 00:01:57,030
So to actually be a conviction, what I'm saying, if I believe it, not someone more intellectual and eloquent beat things down.

20
00:01:57,030 --> 00:02:05,820
Right. Say love with one thing that will help. I mean, it won't do the trick completely because, of course, a lack of confidence has to come from you.

21
00:02:05,820 --> 00:02:09,460
But it will help to feel that you know where you are in arguments that you try.

22
00:02:09,460 --> 00:02:21,360
So I call for the fact that I read the Thomas more.

23
00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:27,740
And I think that's how I came to philosophy. Funny enough to say something like that, so I did an open university course.

24
00:02:27,740 --> 00:02:33,890
I was a mature student, not very mature, 26. And I thought it was an open university course.

25
00:02:33,890 --> 00:02:42,990
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
00:02:42,990 --> 00:02:47,070
And I sat up all night and still trying to do it.

27
00:02:47,070 --> 00:02:50,300
And in the morning I realised that I've had such a much nicer night,

28
00:02:50,300 --> 00:02:55,070
much better night than I've had with all sorts of other things you might stay up all night to do.

29
00:02:55,070 --> 00:02:58,830
I really enjoyed it. And that's what got me into philosophy in the first place.

30
00:02:58,830 --> 00:03:06,620
I came out through an of school at 50 and I came on here eventually, eventually took quite a long time.

31
00:03:06,620 --> 00:03:11,650
But I had never lost my love of philosophy. I've never lost my love of learning.

32
00:03:11,650 --> 00:03:20,390
And that's all down to philosophy. This confidence, you have an argument because if you can learn how to argue properly, you can.

33
00:03:20,390 --> 00:03:22,610
Nothing is hidden from you.

34
00:03:22,610 --> 00:03:32,330
In principle, it's always possible to tease out the arguments and to evaluate the arguments and to take yourself that step further.

35
00:03:32,330 --> 00:03:36,200
And so I hope that after this series of six lectures, of course,

36
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:40,850
you're not going to go away knowing all about logic and knowing all about how to reason properly.

37
00:03:40,850 --> 00:03:47,090
But I hope not all done by that time is giving you more confidence and giving you a feeling for the fun it can be so that you'll

38
00:03:47,090 --> 00:03:55,430
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.

39
00:03:55,430 --> 00:03:59,300
Right. Okay. Let me tell you about Monty Python.

40
00:03:59,300 --> 00:04:04,130
I'm sure some of you know about it, but what it is, is that it's called the argument clinic.

41
00:04:04,130 --> 00:04:12,160
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?

42
00:04:12,160 --> 00:04:17,050
Jesus, whatever it is or not.

43
00:04:17,050 --> 00:04:20,990
Well, no, you haven't. Yes. No, you haven't. Yes, I have.

44
00:04:20,990 --> 00:04:24,750
And this goes on this is almost arguing you're contradicting me.

45
00:04:24,750 --> 00:04:28,880
And John Cleese says, no. No, you're not. Yes, you are.

46
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:33,160
And so it goes on, then presses a bell. That's the end of the sessions.

47
00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:38,000
But that wasn't five minutes. Yes, it was. Yes, it was.

48
00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:45,500
I'm not talking to things and so on. And that was supposed to be an amusing introduction.

49
00:04:45,500 --> 00:04:52,160
But what I wanted to move on to is the idea that John Cleese had it wrong.

50
00:04:52,160 --> 00:05:00,590
Of course, 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.

51
00:05:00,590 --> 00:05:08,270
Part of the point of argument is to move this on from where we are to somewhere a bit further.

52
00:05:08,270 --> 00:05:14,240
Just imagine if the only way we could find out about the world was through our senses.

53
00:05:14,240 --> 00:05:24,050
If if we could see one thing and form one belief, but not take that belief and move on to it to another belief.

54
00:05:24,050 --> 00:05:27,890
So you could say that that's blue and the carpet's blue,

55
00:05:27,890 --> 00:05:34,730
but you couldn't say when two things are the same colour they match, therefore that the chair and the carpet match.

56
00:05:34,730 --> 00:05:40,250
Do you see what I mean? Argument takes us from where we are to to where we want to be.

57
00:05:40,250 --> 00:05:49,160
Or sometimes where we don't want to be. We'll never get very far without argument.

58
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:57,590
Yes. If I can. Well, thank you so much.

59
00:05:57,590 --> 00:06:08,120
This is great. I mean, we're awash with technicians here.

60
00:06:08,120 --> 00:06:16,310
Okay, so let's have a look at the definition of argument. An argument is a set of sentences, and I put sentences there after you wouldn't believe it,

61
00:06:16,310 --> 00:06:23,350
spending half an hour wondering whether short statements, propositions, all expressions of statements or something.

62
00:06:23,350 --> 00:06:27,410
But I'm pretty sentences anyone who wants to quarrel with that's most welcome to do so.

63
00:06:27,410 --> 00:06:36,590
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.

64
00:06:36,590 --> 00:06:39,110
Okay, that's all there is to an argument.

65
00:06:39,110 --> 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.

66
00:06:48,380 --> 00:06:54,050
So his argument, it's Friday. Marijan always wears jeans on a Friday.

67
00:06:54,050 --> 00:06:59,090
So Mahram will be wearing jeans today. Okay, that's a set of sentences.

68
00:06:59,090 --> 00:07:04,130
That is, as a matter of fact, no arguments. Okay, what are the sentences?

69
00:07:04,130 --> 00:07:09,650
Tell me what the sentences are. This is an easy question. So allowing you into a false sense of security.

70
00:07:09,650 --> 00:07:13,520
That's right. It's Friday. That's one sentence. Okay.

71
00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:18,260
It's I've got Komaroff tricks up on straight onto the sentence.

72
00:07:18,260 --> 00:07:27,040
But that doesn't matter. This Friday is a sentence. Okay, next one I told you is easy money and always wears jeans on a Friday.

73
00:07:27,040 --> 00:07:31,660
That's right. So next one area, I thought you are in jeans today.

74
00:07:31,660 --> 00:07:35,440
OK. Those are the sentences that make up the argument. Exactly.

75
00:07:35,440 --> 00:07:40,570
So. Now, here's a bit of tech technology terminology for you.

76
00:07:40,570 --> 00:07:47,320
Technology focus cells a conclusion. Is the sentence being said to be true?

77
00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:52,400
And the premises are the sentences being offered as reasons for believing the other one.

78
00:07:52,400 --> 00:07:57,160
OK. Remember, that might be just one. That might be just one premise. That doesn't need to be, too.

79
00:07:57,160 --> 00:08:00,410
That could be 20 premises. But.

80
00:08:00,410 --> 00:08:06,100
But what makes something a premiss and what makes something a conclusion is the role that they're playing in the argument,

81
00:08:06,100 --> 00:08:11,450
the function that they're performing. So here's the argument again.

82
00:08:11,450 --> 00:08:17,530
What's the conclusion of the argument? That's right.

83
00:08:17,530 --> 00:08:22,570
Yeah, that's the conclusion, because that's the one we're saying is true.

84
00:08:22,570 --> 00:08:29,390
And what are the premises? That's right.

85
00:08:29,390 --> 00:08:33,490
So there are two premises to this argument and one conclusion. OK.

86
00:08:33,490 --> 00:08:42,440
Very simple stuff. So that's the conclusion. It read mine would be wearing jeans today on the premises in green.

87
00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:48,280
It's very important to distinguish arguments from sets of sentences.

88
00:08:48,280 --> 00:08:52,870
Let's see how to do that, because an argument is a set of sentences, but it's more than that.

89
00:08:52,870 --> 00:08:58,300
There's more to an argument than the set of sentences question. But how do you feel about.

90
00:08:58,300 --> 00:09:03,640
I wanted to ask about this one. Does it matter which order they come? I'm very happy to take questions.

91
00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:09,040
If I think they're going to go on too long, I'll shut you up and put you into the question time.

92
00:09:09,040 --> 00:09:13,530
Or if I think it's complicated or something, but otherwise I plan to go on.

93
00:09:13,530 --> 00:09:22,300
Well, the question then is presumably one sentence as a premise depends on another, because it's Friday.

94
00:09:22,300 --> 00:09:27,520
You know the Marijan in that particular argument.

95
00:09:27,520 --> 00:09:34,690
Yes, that's a good question. Let's go back to it. I actually I'm very happy for you to ask questions, because if you do,

96
00:09:34,690 --> 00:09:39,570
it might be a clarification, clarification question like that one, which is quite useful.

97
00:09:39,570 --> 00:09:44,260
And if you look at that, let's get to that one.

98
00:09:44,260 --> 00:09:50,860
If you take out that premise, you might still have an argument.

99
00:09:50,860 --> 00:09:55,240
You say it's Friday. So, Marianne, we'll be wearing jeans today.

100
00:09:55,240 --> 00:10:01,060
But what have you done? Left the implication you are making decisions, right?

101
00:10:01,060 --> 00:10:06,790
That's right. You've left a suppressed premise, haven't you? Because that wouldn't be a good argument.

102
00:10:06,790 --> 00:10:14,380
It would still be an argument, actually, because you'd still be giving one sentence as a reason to believe another one.

103
00:10:14,380 --> 00:10:20,500
But it wouldn't be it wouldn't be an argument that could possibly be convincing were it not for that.

104
00:10:20,500 --> 00:10:25,090
So we often leave premises suppressed in an argument.

105
00:10:25,090 --> 00:10:34,940
But usually when because of the context or because of something that we can assume, we assume that the person knows the other one.

106
00:10:34,940 --> 00:10:40,210
So if we all knew if you knew that every time.

107
00:10:40,210 --> 00:10:47,590
Well, that every Friday I wear jeans, if you will, knew that that would be an argument without the second premise.

108
00:10:47,590 --> 00:10:54,010
So thank you for that. If people didn't have that assumption is that we turned them on separate.

109
00:10:54,010 --> 00:10:58,210
Yes. Yeah. Well done. We'll say something more about what sectors?

110
00:10:58,210 --> 00:11:03,880
Not today, probably, but later, of course, you could actually say Northwest News on Friday.

111
00:11:03,880 --> 00:11:08,340
She was wearing jeans today. You leave out. There you go.

112
00:11:08,340 --> 00:11:11,680
That's right. Yes, you could.

113
00:11:11,680 --> 00:11:15,890
You could. I mean, that would be a different argument, but it would be an argument.

114
00:11:15,890 --> 00:11:26,420
Yes. You can change the rules, say my friend, Jean Shorts.

115
00:11:26,420 --> 00:11:33,250
Yeah. All right. Well, move, move.

116
00:11:33,250 --> 00:11:37,690
That would be a false argument. Hold that one. We'll come back to that in a minutes.

117
00:11:37,690 --> 00:11:46,480
You'll see. What does it say about that? I just want to note that, OK, I'm going to move on because, yes, you can make an argument out of it.

118
00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:52,120
Well, let me just move on and show you exactly what I'm going to say. OK.

119
00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:55,110
It's important to take the arguments from sets of sentences.

120
00:11:55,110 --> 00:12:03,790
Six sentences that are not arguments might either have no relation of told between them or they may have between over any relation.

121
00:12:03,790 --> 00:12:10,240
Other than that characterising an argument, for example, a set of sentences might be consistent,

122
00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:16,000
i.e. such that they could be true together without being an argument.

123
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:20,920
Do you see what I mean? Or they could be related by all referring to.

124
00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:27,160
What's your name? Mike. Mike. They could be related in that way without being an argument.

125
00:12:27,160 --> 00:12:36,010
Do you see what I mean? Lots of different ways. Sets of sentences can be related. But the relation in order to be one at all humans, it's got to.

126
00:12:36,010 --> 00:12:40,570
What is it?

127
00:12:40,570 --> 00:12:51,010
So to say good in order to be an argument has got to be one sentence that's that you're putting forward as being true.

128
00:12:51,010 --> 00:12:55,450
And the other sentences or sentence is a reason for believing that thing.

129
00:12:55,450 --> 00:13:01,330
That's the relation that characterises an argument. Nothing else.

130
00:13:01,330 --> 00:13:05,250
Here's two sets of sentences. That isn't an argument. The sea is salt.

131
00:13:05,250 --> 00:13:10,750
Melbourne's in Australia, but it's very easy to make it an argument.

132
00:13:10,750 --> 00:13:18,420
The sea is salt. Therefore, Melbourne's in Australia. Now, do you think I've made that an argument or not?

133
00:13:18,420 --> 00:13:22,440
No, I'm not saying it's up also.

134
00:13:22,440 --> 00:13:28,630
Gosh, no. That particular one. And I think you'll see one saying this.

135
00:13:28,630 --> 00:13:32,490
It's a wash. There's no link between.

136
00:13:32,490 --> 00:13:38,460
So. So you think that my putting therefore it doesn't make it an argument.

137
00:13:38,460 --> 00:13:43,360
Okay, let me tell you a little story. Okay. We're we're doing a panel show.

138
00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:51,970
Okay. We've got to find out things and find out other things and then come up and we'll win a huge prise.

139
00:13:51,970 --> 00:13:57,040
Now, we're particularly ignorance contestants here.

140
00:13:57,040 --> 00:14:05,260
We don't. Whether the sea salt. We don't know whether Melbourne's in Australia. But we do know that if one of these census is true, so is the other.

141
00:14:05,260 --> 00:14:10,570
OK. That's all we know. We know. We know if one of these censuses is true, says the other.

142
00:14:10,570 --> 00:14:14,530
So now we've got to find out whether one whether either of these census is this truce.

143
00:14:14,530 --> 00:14:17,590
A half an hour and a half of us run off to see whether the sea salt.

144
00:14:17,590 --> 00:14:22,750
Now, the Hoffs run off to find out for the Mauldin's in Australia and the Melton's in Australia.

145
00:14:22,750 --> 00:14:27,890
Sorry to see Assault's ones come back first. They say the sea salt. Melbourne's in Australia.

146
00:14:27,890 --> 00:14:32,320
Hey, is that's an argument which we know.

147
00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:44,410
That's a 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,

148
00:14:44,410 --> 00:14:52,060
and I'm giving a reason for believing it, namely the truth of the seas being sold.

149
00:14:52,060 --> 00:14:56,910
Fair enough. This is an argument. And what.

150
00:14:56,910 --> 00:15:06,190
Okay. It was an argument before I gave you the context, actually, because arguing is something that we do with sentences.

151
00:15:06,190 --> 00:15:11,290
Okay. It's it's we do them because of all sorts of things to do with our backgrounds.

152
00:15:11,290 --> 00:15:19,960
What we've just found out, our desires, our hopes of is our intentions, things like that, arguing something we do and we can do it in any way.

153
00:15:19,960 --> 00:15:31,030
This is why the idea of artificial intelligence, which was talked about a great deal a few years ago, is getting, frankly, nowhere.

154
00:15:31,030 --> 00:15:38,100
And the reason it's getting nowhere is human beings can see the relevance once the context is provided.

155
00:15:38,100 --> 00:15:41,590
Such a computer so far can't see.

156
00:15:41,590 --> 00:15:45,580
I mean, fingers crossed that we will be able to deal with this one.

157
00:15:45,580 --> 00:15:50,130
But the fact is, I mean, it's I think in the context you can see the argument is, can't you?

158
00:15:50,130 --> 00:16:07,780
Some of it 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?

159
00:16:07,780 --> 00:16:14,710
You're right. You're absolutely right. That, in fact, you might say there are a lot of you could say there's a suppressed premise in there,

160
00:16:14,710 --> 00:16:22,150
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.

161
00:16:22,150 --> 00:16:31,220
So if we were game contestants in that situation, I wouldn't have to give that suppressed premise because we would all know it.

162
00:16:31,220 --> 00:16:36,610
But again, well done. No, I think that's the point at the backrest premises assignment context.

163
00:16:36,610 --> 00:16:47,320
No, no, no. It provides in the context. I enables us to see the suppressed premise, if you like.

164
00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:51,570
Because just at the moment, there's no suppressed fantasy that we can see.

165
00:16:51,570 --> 00:16:57,130
I mean, we don't see why that's an argument you won't deny. It wasn't the argument because you can't see the relevance between the two.

166
00:16:57,130 --> 00:17:06,430
What I did was make one relevant to the other. And in doing so, I provided you with the premise that that was suppressed.

167
00:17:06,430 --> 00:17:13,720
So there's a suppressed premise, which is a sentence because the premises are always sentences.

168
00:17:13,720 --> 00:17:23,720
And that's what I provided by providing the context. I'm struggling with that because that's all right.

169
00:17:23,720 --> 00:17:29,720
This has happened in Australia, not because the sea salt, but because this is true.

170
00:17:29,720 --> 00:17:34,670
I know this is very interesting. OK. Very interesting question.

171
00:17:34,670 --> 00:17:37,790
What's your confusing? I apologise.

172
00:17:37,790 --> 00:17:52,430
Is causation and entailment the premises, the premises, the premises of an argument do not cause the conclusion to be true.

173
00:17:52,430 --> 00:18:01,400
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?

174
00:18:01,400 --> 00:18:08,570
Not necessarily. I mean, it might be or it might be that actually I wear jeans on a Friday because to

175
00:18:08,570 --> 00:18:13,450
commemorate the first pair of jeans that my mom ever bought me or something,

176
00:18:13,450 --> 00:18:18,500
I think you would think of a reason for making Hideaways Jeans Day.

177
00:18:18,500 --> 00:18:32,010
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.

178
00:18:32,010 --> 00:18:37,910
OK. And when you say that the C is salt doesn't cause Melbourne to be in Australia, you're quite right.

179
00:18:37,910 --> 00:18:45,410
But say that the C is salt. Therefore, Melbourne in Australia isn't implying causation of any kind.

180
00:18:45,410 --> 00:18:53,380
OK. What do you do. Oh you ignore them.

181
00:18:53,380 --> 00:19:00,080
What. Again, that's a very good question. I'm glad you asked that. Let's go to Mrs Salt on this.

182
00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:06,020
Well, actually we could do it with a Marijan one as well because there are lots of people called Marianne off of me in the world.

183
00:19:06,020 --> 00:19:11,250
All it means is if Marianne is there anywhere else called Marianne in this room.

184
00:19:11,250 --> 00:19:18,230
All right. Put out the end if your call, John. This is the second time this has happened to me.

185
00:19:18,230 --> 00:19:22,460
Okay. There are no johns in this room. Let's just make your mike.

186
00:19:22,460 --> 00:19:27,020
Is there anyone else called Mike? Like to Mike's in this room.

187
00:19:27,020 --> 00:19:30,500
If I was if I say Mike is tall. Okay.

188
00:19:30,500 --> 00:19:35,180
Then that's ambiguous, isn't it? It has two meanings. I could be referring to that, Michael.

189
00:19:35,180 --> 00:19:39,550
That Mike. One of you may be short. In which case to be false.

190
00:19:39,550 --> 00:19:47,030
One, the truth. The other. But what I've actually got here is two sentences.

191
00:19:47,030 --> 00:19:52,730
How complicated. I'm going to get here. There's a type of sentence.

192
00:19:52,730 --> 00:19:59,650
I have no penance. Believe it or not. That was another thing that fell off the list.

193
00:19:59,650 --> 00:20:07,130
Would you mind? You can't see this.

194
00:20:07,130 --> 00:20:11,570
Yes, you can imagine it. Okay. Mike is told.

195
00:20:11,570 --> 00:20:16,490
What it says. Now, if I could actually get Mike, let's put Johnny's tool there.

196
00:20:16,490 --> 00:20:22,310
Now, if I put Johnny's tool up there that has no meaning, doesn't it,

197
00:20:22,310 --> 00:20:29,150
in the context of this room, in the sense that there's nobody to whom John refers as we know.

198
00:20:29,150 --> 00:20:35,840
OK. But I could use that since it's Johnny's tool to say something inside in the same way.

199
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:40,650
Here is a census type that could be used to say things.

200
00:20:40,650 --> 00:20:49,730
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.

201
00:20:49,730 --> 00:20:54,500
But those are two different tokens of the same type of sentence.

202
00:20:54,500 --> 00:20:58,640
See what I mean? So just as that's one token of the type chair.

203
00:20:58,640 --> 00:21:02,000
That's another one. And this is one token of the type human being.

204
00:21:02,000 --> 00:21:06,830
And that's another one. Mike is tall is one, too.

205
00:21:06,830 --> 00:21:11,810
That's type of sentence. And Mike, his tool is another token of that type of sentence.

206
00:21:11,810 --> 00:21:19,480
So actually, if you have to Melvins, you can have two arguments that that could be.

207
00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:30,080
It could either be. This is salt. Therefore, Melbourne, which is in the Northern Territory, is in Australia or Melbourne, which is in.

208
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:35,090
Thank you. Victoria is in Australia for a Norwegian board.

209
00:21:35,090 --> 00:21:41,260
Well, no, not in Derbyshire, because that would falsify that one, wouldn't it, unless there's a Darbyshire in Australia.

210
00:21:41,260 --> 00:21:54,200
And so that. Six folks.

211
00:21:54,200 --> 00:22:03,290
I'm going to hold over that question and I'm going to take it together with your claim that the arguments false.

212
00:22:03,290 --> 00:22:09,830
Okay. And I'll come back to it shortly. OK.

213
00:22:09,830 --> 00:22:17,450
So arguing is something that we do with sentences weak at any sentences could form part of an argument.

214
00:22:17,450 --> 00:22:22,210
There's no such thing as a sentence that couldn't be part of an argument.

215
00:22:22,210 --> 00:22:28,880
What makes it an argument is the fact that we are making an argument claim we're putting forward

216
00:22:28,880 --> 00:22:34,850
one sentence and we're offering the other sentences as reasons to believe that sentence.

217
00:22:34,850 --> 00:22:40,820
So you cannot recognise arguments by recognising the sentences that are in arguments.

218
00:22:40,820 --> 00:22:47,690
You've got to recognise the relation between the sentences. OK, let's look at these.

219
00:22:47,690 --> 00:22:51,410
Which of these sentences are arguments? Right.

220
00:22:51,410 --> 00:22:57,820
Who thinks that this is an argument? OK.

221
00:22:57,820 --> 00:23:02,610
No one else. OK. Why do you think that's an argument? He's making assumptions.

222
00:23:02,610 --> 00:23:09,410
The storm broke the clouds in the sky and the storm broke because the clouds formed the back.

223
00:23:09,410 --> 00:23:17,590
Does that make it an argument? He calls.

224
00:23:17,590 --> 00:23:26,040
That that we had, because it's very difficult, because distinguish causes and reasons for something.

225
00:23:26,040 --> 00:23:29,730
OK. There can be a causal relation between two events.

226
00:23:29,730 --> 00:23:36,290
So a causal relation between two events.

227
00:23:36,290 --> 00:23:46,480
And that can be a rational relation between two sentences or two beliefs.

228
00:23:46,480 --> 00:23:52,390
OK. And we tend to use because at the both of these types of relation,

229
00:23:52,390 --> 00:24:01,300
that these are causes and these are reasons and you weren't making that up and you shouldn't be worried about making this area because it was a very,

230
00:24:01,300 --> 00:24:07,210
very common one. You were thinking of the causal relation as a rational relation, but it's not, is it?

231
00:24:07,210 --> 00:24:13,960
Okay, so that's not an argument, because always saying is that actually three events happened, don't we?

232
00:24:13,960 --> 00:24:18,220
Firstly, clouds formed, then the sky blackens, then the storm broke.

233
00:24:18,220 --> 00:24:24,180
And there may be a causal relation between them, but we're not saying that these two are reason for believing.

234
00:24:24,180 --> 00:24:29,000
The other always with me is what is this argument?

235
00:24:29,000 --> 00:24:32,770
Put your hands up. If you say yes. Yes. Okay.

236
00:24:32,770 --> 00:24:42,930
Which is a conclusion based on the premises.

237
00:24:42,930 --> 00:24:50,060
That's right. Matisses Northmont said Edinburgh's North Boxwood, sorry, because it's North Manchester.

238
00:24:50,060 --> 00:24:52,500
It was north of Oxford, is the conclusion.

239
00:24:52,500 --> 00:24:59,970
So this one is since Manchester is north of Oxford and Edinburgh's North Manchester, Edinburgh is north of Oxford as it grows north of Oxford.

240
00:24:59,970 --> 00:25:05,060
It's the conclusion. The other two of the premises. That's definitely an argument.

241
00:25:05,060 --> 00:25:09,480
Okay. Which is float because which is a piece of wood and wood floats.

242
00:25:09,480 --> 00:25:15,720
It's not an argument or not. Put your hands up if you think there's an argument. That's my argument.

243
00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:21,270
You're quite right. What's the conclusion? Which is float.

244
00:25:21,270 --> 00:25:27,090
Okay. And then the premises are. Which you say would float.

245
00:25:27,090 --> 00:25:31,990
That's right. Notice that the conclusion is that the front here doesn't make any difference, does it?

246
00:25:31,990 --> 00:25:39,680
Because what makes the sentence a conclusion? It falls from the military front.

247
00:25:39,680 --> 00:25:43,560
No. Because it might not follow from the other two premises. It might be a bad argument.

248
00:25:43,560 --> 00:25:51,450
What makes something a conclusion? Because no one does that in a sentence.

249
00:25:51,450 --> 00:26:01,250
Well, I ceramicist if even if you wanted to prevent argument one, it wouldn't have done for long somebody to say that's true.

250
00:26:01,250 --> 00:26:06,620
And so what you're saying is true. That's right. You'll see. You'll say this is true because of the others.

251
00:26:06,620 --> 00:26:11,580
Whether because as a rational. Because those are causal defaults. Okay.

252
00:26:11,580 --> 00:26:20,890
Let me tell you again, the only thing that makes a sentence, a conclusion or a premiss is the role that it's playing in the argument.

253
00:26:20,890 --> 00:26:28,860
Okay. If it's playing the role of being the the sentence for which you're arguing, then it's a conclusion.

254
00:26:28,860 --> 00:26:36,620
And if it's playing the role of a sentence for which the story which you're offering is a reason for leaving the other one, then it's a premise.

255
00:26:36,620 --> 00:26:45,290
Okay. That's the only thing that makes sense. It's a premise or a conclusion. Not true.

256
00:26:45,290 --> 00:26:48,980
Well, we'll come to truth in a minute. Truth is, you're quite right.

257
00:26:48,980 --> 00:26:59,540
The truth is very important, but not just yet. Notice instead that there's no there's no reason why a sentence is playing.

258
00:26:59,540 --> 00:27:05,870
The role of a conclusion in one argument can't play the role of a premise in another argument.

259
00:27:05,870 --> 00:27:06,530
Do you see what I mean?

260
00:27:06,530 --> 00:27:13,190
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.

261
00:27:13,190 --> 00:27:18,320
Not anything intrinsic to the sentence. Music is intrinsic to the sentence.

262
00:27:18,320 --> 00:27:24,620
You'd have a sentence that could only be a conclusion. Which should be rather odd, wouldn't it?

263
00:27:24,620 --> 00:27:29,280
I'm not sure their office some that I might think of, one that I call off the top of my head.

264
00:27:29,280 --> 00:27:34,430
So. So what makes a sentence? A conclusion is that you are arguing for it.

265
00:27:34,430 --> 00:27:39,720
What makes it a premise is that you are using it to argue for something else.

266
00:27:39,720 --> 00:27:48,680
OK. Is this argument hands up? If you think it is. Could be a plans to.

267
00:27:48,680 --> 00:27:59,550
It's an even more difficult one, isn't it? If it were a conclusion which would prove that if it were an argument, which would be the conclusion.

268
00:27:59,550 --> 00:28:09,770
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.

269
00:28:09,770 --> 00:28:15,410
Jesse James took his gang with him. Therefore, things have been a lot quieter.

270
00:28:15,410 --> 00:28:20,540
There's an implied promise about that. Jesse James and his gang.

271
00:28:20,540 --> 00:28:26,270
We can make ends meet on our own. Yes. I don't think that's an argument myself.

272
00:28:26,270 --> 00:28:30,660
I think it's just a concatenation of sentences.

273
00:28:30,660 --> 00:28:36,080
I several sentences strung together. As it might there might be a problem.

274
00:28:36,080 --> 00:28:40,760
In fact, there could be is a causal relationship to. Isn't that why things quater?

275
00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:44,360
Because Jesse James left town and taken it's taken his gang with them as well.

276
00:28:44,360 --> 00:28:50,330
Not just an explanation are now explanations, reasons and causes.

277
00:28:50,330 --> 00:28:57,350
Now you're really getting into the interesting stuff. Explanations can be both causal and rational, can't they?

278
00:28:57,350 --> 00:29:02,200
So I can give an explanation of your behaviour that's rational.

279
00:29:02,200 --> 00:29:07,370
All right. We'll get an explanation of your behaviour. That's causal. So what's your name?

280
00:29:07,370 --> 00:29:11,960
Paul. Paul. Okay, so the reason Paul did that was whatever.

281
00:29:11,960 --> 00:29:16,370
Or Paul did that because. What's your name? Jenny.

282
00:29:16,370 --> 00:29:19,620
Jenny pushed him. Just pushed it.

283
00:29:19,620 --> 00:29:25,850
Paul fell over. Okay. All Paul fell over because he was trying to make the children laugh.

284
00:29:25,850 --> 00:29:30,650
Juicy ones. A rational explanation. And the other's a causal explanation.

285
00:29:30,650 --> 00:29:35,810
Causes reasons and explanations are intimately tied together.

286
00:29:35,810 --> 00:29:48,170
And we'll talk about probably quite often in these sessions. But the important thing is that it might be that that not all causes are reasons.

287
00:29:48,170 --> 00:29:56,780
It may be those or reasons of causes. But it's not the case that all causes the reasons because some causes are non rational.

288
00:29:56,780 --> 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.

289
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

290
00:30:08,270 --> 00:30:14,000
one forward is true and putting the others forward as reasons for believing the one.

291
00:30:14,000 --> 00:30:22,090
That's what an argument is. So if a set of sentences doesn't have that relation between them, it isn't an argument.

292
00:30:22,090 --> 00:30:29,510
It's one of the reasons why the Thomas class increased.

293
00:30:29,510 --> 00:30:35,840
So it may be just coincidence. Yes, you may not be saying there's even a causal relationship here.

294
00:30:35,840 --> 00:30:39,280
You know, actually, since Jessie Davis left town to his gang with him,

295
00:30:39,280 --> 00:30:45,630
things have been a lot quieter because it's not been necessary to do this stuff or the other.

296
00:30:45,630 --> 00:30:49,900
Yes. But you could very back on track with that, wasn't it?

297
00:30:49,900 --> 00:30:53,560
Well, as I said, you know, supply context in which anything is an argument.

298
00:30:53,560 --> 00:31:02,800
So that's true. Young is a certain of cynicism is subjective or object to.

299
00:31:02,800 --> 00:31:08,170
Is it a matter of opinion? Well, is it.

300
00:31:08,170 --> 00:31:15,990
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?

301
00:31:15,990 --> 00:31:20,170
Or did I somehow make it an argument?

302
00:31:20,170 --> 00:31:29,510
I mean, did I make it appear to be an argument or did I make it an argument?

303
00:31:29,510 --> 00:31:35,680
Estimated appear to be an argument by making its arguments. Yes.

304
00:31:35,680 --> 00:31:40,960
And therefore it became an argument or rather, you started to see that it was an argument.

305
00:31:40,960 --> 00:31:47,770
Is that right? So objective and subjective.

306
00:31:47,770 --> 00:31:55,390
When I used to teach undergraduates, I used to say that I wouldn't let me use those words until that third year because they're very difficult words.

307
00:31:55,390 --> 00:32:02,740
And the reason they're very different, difficult words is because there are objective facts about subjective thing.

308
00:32:02,740 --> 00:32:06,160
If you think of the subject of state as the state of the subject,

309
00:32:06,160 --> 00:32:11,610
state happiness or something like that, then there are objective facts about such states.

310
00:32:11,610 --> 00:32:16,180
And know you are happy. No, you're not. That's a bad example, actually.

311
00:32:16,180 --> 00:32:22,120
Happiness anyway. You see what I mean? I guess I will reject an argument because I say it off.

312
00:32:22,120 --> 00:32:27,480
I don't think it's not. Or do you mean it's got a lot of argument?

313
00:32:27,480 --> 00:32:31,870
Well, that's. I was just going to make that distinction. Okay. Two questions you might ask.

314
00:32:31,870 --> 00:32:39,450
That isn't an argument or that isn't a good argument. Not clear.

315
00:32:39,450 --> 00:32:48,790
Clearly, you can make a distinction that claim whether the person making it.

316
00:32:48,790 --> 00:32:54,040
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
00:32:54,040 --> 00:33:00,730
I'm not sure of a feeling you say, yes, it is.

318
00:33:00,730 --> 00:33:07,080
But then you'd have to provide the context which would make it clear to the other person that it's an argument.

319
00:33:07,080 --> 00:33:11,270
Okay, let's move on, because we've sort of turned your back to John, please.

320
00:33:11,270 --> 00:33:17,860
John, please. What did he say? Oh, that's not an argument.

321
00:33:17,860 --> 00:33:24,010
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
00:33:24,010 --> 00:33:27,850
You have just two sentences, one which contradicts the other.

323
00:33:27,850 --> 00:33:32,140
That's not an argument. And that's an argument against. But it's not arguments against.

324
00:33:32,140 --> 00:33:39,370
The truth of this is this is the argument gets the truth of. That's an argument. Oh, clarity of thought.

325
00:33:39,370 --> 00:33:44,320
It's wonderful. All right, let's move on. OK.

326
00:33:44,320 --> 00:33:49,950
There are often words that suggest there's a set of sentences as an argument.

327
00:33:49,950 --> 00:33:58,750
When we looked at these and we saw that you so wanted to because in there, because that would have convinced you it was no argument.

328
00:33:58,750 --> 00:34:08,320
Should it have done? No, not necessarily, because it does sometimes in an argument, but not always.

329
00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:16,330
Okay. Where's the argument? Word in this one.

330
00:34:16,330 --> 00:34:20,980
Okay. What about that one. So.

331
00:34:20,980 --> 00:34:30,400
Yeah, OK. Can you give me any more if ah if there is a difficult one.

332
00:34:30,400 --> 00:34:33,880
The answer is. Well I shall. I'll talk about.

333
00:34:33,880 --> 00:34:40,540
That's going to minute. I will put it on one side because you've got some system in which between imputation and entitlements.

334
00:34:40,540 --> 00:34:43,990
But we'll do that in a minute. Hence is a good one.

335
00:34:43,990 --> 00:34:48,340
Yeah. Even given that then. Yeah.

336
00:34:48,340 --> 00:34:55,920
Then there's another one that's a bit iffy actually. Therefore is very definitely an argument word.

337
00:34:55,920 --> 00:35:01,560
Yeah. And since that is that there are words that we consequently.

338
00:35:01,560 --> 00:35:03,460
Yeah. OK, let's leave that.

339
00:35:03,460 --> 00:35:11,150
So to firstly we've, we've said what's an argument is and we've said how to distinguish an argument from a set of sentences.

340
00:35:11,150 --> 00:35:18,810
But we've also got to distinguish an argument from an assertion, just a straightforward assertion.

341
00:35:18,810 --> 00:35:25,410
Okay. An argument is a set of sentences, just one of which is being asserted.

342
00:35:25,410 --> 00:35:30,250
Okay. And this session is a single sentence, possibly a complex sentence.

343
00:35:30,250 --> 00:35:35,270
It might be Marans wearing jeans. And it's Friday. So that's one sentence.

344
00:35:35,270 --> 00:35:42,070
Conjoined with a sentence conjunction. And that's being expressed in that it's esoteric move.

345
00:35:42,070 --> 00:35:49,420
So which of these sentences are or could be assertions?

346
00:35:49,420 --> 00:35:57,700
Number one is only number one. Exactly. So I say it could be because, of course, it could be said, I could say the room is hot.

347
00:35:57,700 --> 00:36:02,040
That's Australian intonation. That makes it a question. Do you see what I mean?

348
00:36:02,040 --> 00:36:08,530
So so I could ask a question in the form of words that would usually be used for Asatru.

349
00:36:08,530 --> 00:36:13,810
So, again, remember, that language is something we use and we can use it in all sorts of different ways.

350
00:36:13,810 --> 00:36:19,380
But this is a this sentence has interrogative force, doesn't it, is the root cause.

351
00:36:19,380 --> 00:36:29,020
And this has imperative force turn the heat up. That one is being used as historically, not the others.

352
00:36:29,020 --> 00:36:34,420
Some assertions and this will pick up the point you would make there. Looks very like arguments.

353
00:36:34,420 --> 00:36:43,630
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.

354
00:36:43,630 --> 00:36:50,040
Why isn't that an argument? Can anyone tell me the story?

355
00:36:50,040 --> 00:36:59,320
Well done. Yes, it is its assertion that Professor Marcus may not always be true.

356
00:36:59,320 --> 00:37:03,070
Okay, I'll use my brother. Is it good? Okay.

357
00:37:03,070 --> 00:37:07,430
All we asserting it is snowing. No.

358
00:37:07,430 --> 00:37:11,110
Always searching the mail will be late. No.

359
00:37:11,110 --> 00:37:15,370
Always assessing. If it snowed, the mail will be late. Yes.

360
00:37:15,370 --> 00:37:21,430
So there's only one sentence there, isn't there? It happens to be complex.

361
00:37:21,430 --> 00:37:28,930
It's a it's a sentence. That's the sum. Sententious parts are themselves intentional.

362
00:37:28,930 --> 00:37:33,610
But it's not an argument because it doesn't satisfy the description, does it?

363
00:37:33,610 --> 00:37:40,330
It doesn't satisfy the the claim that there must be a sentence that's being put forward is true and

364
00:37:40,330 --> 00:37:45,700
other sentences that have been put forward to support the claim that that one sentence is true.

365
00:37:45,700 --> 00:37:50,710
So that's an entail. Sorry, that's not an implication.

366
00:37:50,710 --> 00:37:57,320
Not an entailment. Okay, so that's it.

367
00:37:57,320 --> 00:38:01,830
Snow, you apply to mail. We'll be late. It doesn't entail that the mail won't be late.

368
00:38:01,830 --> 00:38:08,500
Husband's back. An argument.

369
00:38:08,500 --> 00:38:13,190
What does make is ungrammatical, actually. Therefore, it is snowing, the mail will be late.

370
00:38:13,190 --> 00:38:16,220
Sorry, not the place, was it the other way.

371
00:38:16,220 --> 00:38:25,780
Therefore, that would make it an argument because the therefore signals entailment then can signal entailment.

372
00:38:25,780 --> 00:38:33,180
But it doesn't automatically, but therefore going to say something very fash there.

373
00:38:33,180 --> 00:38:39,160
That will always does not make you like that. OK.

374
00:38:39,160 --> 00:38:46,480
So we need to distinguish things like that from arguments.

375
00:38:46,480 --> 00:38:52,580
Now we guess also the bit that's been worrying around the central room here.

376
00:38:52,580 --> 00:38:57,220
OK. Think about assertions. Is that either true or false? OK.

377
00:38:57,220 --> 00:39:04,360
Now, this is an interesting thing. There are only two sorts of things that can be true or false in this world.

378
00:39:04,360 --> 00:39:09,520
One of them is beliefs. Beliefs are either true or false.

379
00:39:09,520 --> 00:39:15,190
And the other is the sentences that we use to express beliefs.

380
00:39:15,190 --> 00:39:22,000
OK. So if I believe that the chair is blue, I can express that belief in the sentence.

381
00:39:22,000 --> 00:39:30,700
The chair is blue and both the belief and the sentence used to express it can be either true or false.

382
00:39:30,700 --> 00:39:35,940
Are you with me? Can you think of anything else that can be true or false?

383
00:39:35,940 --> 00:39:42,020
That's. No facts of what makes sentences true or false.

384
00:39:42,020 --> 00:39:46,010
They are not themselves true or false. They just exist or don't exist.

385
00:39:46,010 --> 00:40:01,890
So the fact that that chair is blue makes true the sentence that Chair Blue would make a joke about her hair.

386
00:40:01,890 --> 00:40:10,530
When you say that, you say. What about the fact or that sentence and that sentence?

387
00:40:10,530 --> 00:40:17,910
Well, that's not true or false, isn't it? I mean, if you're. I mean.

388
00:40:17,910 --> 00:40:21,870
Let me just point out some ambiguity. What what's your name? Yes.

389
00:40:21,870 --> 00:40:25,610
I said, what about. What did you say?

390
00:40:25,610 --> 00:40:34,940
Her hands. Blonde hair is blonde.

391
00:40:34,940 --> 00:40:41,100
If I put it like that, I'm talking about the fact on. Whereas if I took it, do that.

392
00:40:41,100 --> 00:40:47,460
I'm now talking about the sentence. Right. If I take those out again.

393
00:40:47,460 --> 00:40:56,820
That's not the sort of thing can be that can be true because the fact that someone's hair is blonde, that her hair is blonde makes true the senses.

394
00:40:56,820 --> 00:41:01,320
Her hair is blonde. You. Difficult stuff.

395
00:41:01,320 --> 00:41:10,930
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.

396
00:41:10,930 --> 00:41:17,680
You know, these distinctions are there to be made. Do you just need the clarity of thought to be able to make them that?

397
00:41:17,680 --> 00:41:23,140
Because facts are just always true. Facts aren't true at all.

398
00:41:23,140 --> 00:41:35,280
Fatfat Are what make sentences. True facts, either of facts, if you like, of combinations of things or events or things or properties and events.

399
00:41:35,280 --> 00:41:40,160
So if you think it's something like her hair is blonde. That's a fact.

400
00:41:40,160 --> 00:41:48,210
OK. Her hair is being blonde. Her jacket's being green is a green.

401
00:41:48,210 --> 00:41:55,020
It would fit right in. Whether that's a fact or not, we're not really sure.

402
00:41:55,020 --> 00:41:59,060
A story. A fact of the matter, which is.

403
00:41:59,060 --> 00:42:04,290
Sorry, I didn't mean that. Diana's Jacobins history.

404
00:42:04,290 --> 00:42:14,220
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.

405
00:42:14,220 --> 00:42:22,320
The sentence that expresses that, the belief that that's a fact is false.

406
00:42:22,320 --> 00:42:37,830
Sorry I lost myself in the beginning of that sentence. The sentence with words, which is made with facts in that sentence, refers to a fact,

407
00:42:37,830 --> 00:42:45,590
if you like, even that which is in that context, beyond that question.

408
00:42:45,590 --> 00:42:49,200
Oh, I see it referred to a potential fact. A putative fact.

409
00:42:49,200 --> 00:42:52,590
Yes, that's right. Yes, of course. I know. That's a thank you.

410
00:42:52,590 --> 00:42:58,500
That's a very good point to make, because if I say something false. What makes it false?

411
00:42:58,500 --> 00:43:04,710
It's a fact. But it's not the fact. So if I say that Charles Black.

412
00:43:04,710 --> 00:43:14,190
The fact of the chairs not being black is what makes that useful.

413
00:43:14,190 --> 00:43:19,470
It gets difficult, as you can see. But the thing to remember is this.

414
00:43:19,470 --> 00:43:23,760
There are three different levels that are very important.

415
00:43:23,760 --> 00:43:26,490
You have to keep separate in thinking clearly.

416
00:43:26,490 --> 00:43:36,380
And of course, all critical reasoning involves clarity of thought that these levels of the level of language.

417
00:43:36,380 --> 00:43:47,640
Fort. And the thing I always call reality, but that's that's wrong because, of course, language and thoughts are real.

418
00:43:47,640 --> 00:43:52,080
So so that's completely wrong. But I keep using it that way.

419
00:43:52,080 --> 00:43:59,400
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
00:43:59,400 --> 00:44:04,130
Okay. It's a linguistic item. Then there's the concept.

421
00:44:04,130 --> 00:44:09,800
Red Oak. It's what I think that is red.

422
00:44:09,800 --> 00:44:16,770
OK. I'm using the concept red. And then there's redness, the property.

423
00:44:16,770 --> 00:44:20,880
So these three things are quite different from each other, aren't they?

424
00:44:20,880 --> 00:44:26,960
So if I say this is the property of being red.

425
00:44:26,960 --> 00:44:36,040
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.

426
00:44:36,040 --> 00:44:40,480
And if I see this is red, then I'm using the word red.

427
00:44:40,480 --> 00:44:47,820
Nurses in French. It would be a different word, wouldn't it? But the same concept on the same property.

428
00:44:47,820 --> 00:44:52,230
So there's an all the tree elements in language. Isn't that in the other two?

429
00:44:52,230 --> 00:44:57,510
So what's the French roof? I think.

430
00:44:57,510 --> 00:45:03,870
I'm glad I use red. Not something else. I'm sorry.

431
00:45:03,870 --> 00:45:12,750
Could you speak a word of the red? I mean, some people might say this is metaphysics.

432
00:45:12,750 --> 00:45:19,970
One day one. They can't be true.

433
00:45:19,970 --> 00:45:27,880
It's all true. They know.

434
00:45:27,880 --> 00:45:36,770
Right. That's what you're talking about here in terms of facts and truths and so on.

435
00:45:36,770 --> 00:45:45,370
OK. What you're suggesting is that what I see is Red Mike might see as orange, green or something else.

436
00:45:45,370 --> 00:45:50,180
OK. So what we're saying is, why isn't anyone wearing red? Will somebody please come next time wearing red?

437
00:45:50,180 --> 00:45:54,230
Maybe it makes it much easier. There's.

438
00:45:54,230 --> 00:46:01,820
That would have hit in the middle there. So when I look at that lady, what's your name?

439
00:46:01,820 --> 00:46:10,370
Hildegarde. Right. When I look at those Goldstrike that I see, I see it looks like that my my looks.

440
00:46:10,370 --> 00:46:15,800
Is it. It looks different. Okay. It appears differently to my.

441
00:46:15,800 --> 00:46:20,010
So I would say that jacket is pink.

442
00:46:20,010 --> 00:46:23,900
Of course Mike would also say it's pink. Okay.

443
00:46:23,900 --> 00:46:28,130
The pink is different for Mike. That is for me. That's what your.

444
00:46:28,130 --> 00:46:31,710
Where are you. That's what you say. Okay. They put it thinking.

445
00:46:31,710 --> 00:46:35,730
Let's put it red. I love you.

446
00:46:35,730 --> 00:46:43,480
And I use those colours. It's not like I'm going to say. I know people like that.

447
00:46:43,480 --> 00:46:51,650
Yeah. Shall we not get into that, don't they?

448
00:46:51,650 --> 00:46:57,510
Well, let's let's make a very important distinction between epistemology and metaphysics here.

449
00:46:57,510 --> 00:47:01,310
There's one question, which is, is something a fact?

450
00:47:01,310 --> 00:47:09,910
And there's another question. Do we know it's a fact? Okay, so let's talk about it is pink as a fact.

451
00:47:09,910 --> 00:47:14,840
OK. Rather than do we know it's a fact?

452
00:47:14,840 --> 00:47:19,460
Vic and Stein showed us. There's actually the question. Could we see it differently?

453
00:47:19,460 --> 00:47:28,550
Is actually a normal question. The answer is if they're discussing too complicated, it's going to take us too far away from.

454
00:47:28,550 --> 00:47:35,000
I'm sorry. I don't want to be using this, but I've just realised what I was about.

455
00:47:35,000 --> 00:47:45,100
I think I mean, I believe to have to be a belief.

456
00:47:45,100 --> 00:47:49,670
I'll just leave that to happen where they're going.

457
00:47:49,670 --> 00:47:57,380
Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Oh, right. Okay. You're using beliefs in a word in a way that lots of people do.

458
00:47:57,380 --> 00:48:02,750
So actually, I'm very glad you brought this up. People think of beliefs as things that you can't prove.

459
00:48:02,750 --> 00:48:08,480
So you have either before you have knowledge. Well, that's not how we use the word belief in philosophy.

460
00:48:08,480 --> 00:48:21,350
A belief is something you postulate an explanation of someone's behaviour or is something you put forward as true or as false.

461
00:48:21,350 --> 00:48:26,360
And it's certainly not the case that it's something you can't prove. I mean, there are many beliefs that we can prove.

462
00:48:26,360 --> 00:48:31,260
I mean. Just, sir, his.

463
00:48:31,260 --> 00:48:40,080
I believe that two plus two is four. And I daresay that you wouldn't want me to even attempt to prove that because you believe it, too.

464
00:48:40,080 --> 00:48:46,630
Is that reasonable? OK, so here's a belief that we can.

465
00:48:46,630 --> 00:48:50,610
That we believe is conclusive. True, so.

466
00:48:50,610 --> 00:48:56,390
So we do what we believed to be religious belief or something like that.

467
00:48:56,390 --> 00:49:07,800
Look, this is positive. If we go back to this, let's use chair concepts of chair and chair.

468
00:49:07,800 --> 00:49:13,670
Yes, sir. The chair is something I can draw.

469
00:49:13,670 --> 00:49:19,810
OK. I can't draw the concept of a chair. I can only entertain it.

470
00:49:19,810 --> 00:49:27,440
And I can say chair has five letters. See what I mean?

471
00:49:27,440 --> 00:49:34,630
OK. Chains exist. Now, that's a fact which I didn't think about.

472
00:49:34,630 --> 00:49:38,940
Do chairs exist? Barclays said the chairs didn't exist.

473
00:49:38,940 --> 00:49:46,440
Accepters perception's in my mind. And of course, I can then talk about what I'm thinking about.

474
00:49:46,440 --> 00:49:56,710
So the fact that chairs exist. If indeed it is a fact is something we can think about and talk about.

475
00:49:56,710 --> 00:50:05,430
Do you 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
00:50:05,430 --> 00:50:08,450
It's if we confuse these three levels,

477
00:50:08,450 --> 00:50:16,730
we will not think clearly because you might end up thinking like a concept chair has five letters or concepts that have any lessons,

478
00:50:16,730 --> 00:50:21,250
actually, or you might think. Chairs have five letters which she chairs.

479
00:50:21,250 --> 00:50:25,640
Don't want any lessons. Doesn't make sense. The thing my chairs chairs having mean.

480
00:50:25,640 --> 00:50:32,450
See what I mean. Keep these. So going back to this one.

481
00:50:32,450 --> 00:50:39,380
If I said this junk is loud.

482
00:50:39,380 --> 00:50:48,830
What would you think? This jug is loud. I would wonder if you're in a different context.

483
00:50:48,830 --> 00:50:54,630
Well, I need to be perfectly reasonable for you to be to think that's because actually that doesn't make any sense.

484
00:50:54,630 --> 00:50:59,790
That sentence does it, because Juggs of the sort of thing that can be loud.

485
00:50:59,790 --> 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.

486
00:51:06,410 --> 00:51:12,530
I would be displaying my misunderstandings were laddered or the misunderstanding of the word job.

487
00:51:12,530 --> 00:51:21,830
Is that right? When you say that argument is false, you display the fact that you don't understand either.

488
00:51:21,830 --> 00:51:31,370
The words are the arguments or false. There's arguments can't be true or false.

489
00:51:31,370 --> 00:51:35,750
Arguments can only be good or bad. They can be valid or invalid.

490
00:51:35,750 --> 00:51:43,760
They can't be true or false. And that's because it's the only things that are true or false or beliefs or sentences.

491
00:51:43,760 --> 00:51:54,380
The sentences thus express beliefs. Now, in general, everyday talk, we do talk about arguments being true or false.

492
00:51:54,380 --> 00:52:02,180
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
00:52:02,180 --> 00:52:06,380
you must stop doing that because arguments can't be false.

494
00:52:06,380 --> 00:52:14,320
What is it for a belief to be false? If I if I told her what if I quote Mike is tall.

495
00:52:14,320 --> 00:52:26,780
OK. What is it for that belief to be false? Now the it's for the things that I mean by Mike to not be in the in the class of things that at all.

496
00:52:26,780 --> 00:52:31,040
Is that right? And all occupants are six of sentences.

497
00:52:31,040 --> 00:52:44,930
You can't evaluate them in that way. Can you turn, though, that there's a form of argument that is the truth, preserving all arguments,

498
00:52:44,930 --> 00:52:53,900
truth preserving or these all good arguments and truth preserving because the truth of the premises is preserved in the truth of the conclusion.

499
00:52:53,900 --> 00:52:59,680
So it's silly to say that's not true. And we'll talk about that later on in science.

500
00:52:59,680 --> 00:53:04,270
But we're not saying it's true. We say it's truth. Preserving knowledge is a different thing entirely.

501
00:53:04,270 --> 00:53:08,840
Yeah. OK. Do we understand this?

502
00:53:08,840 --> 00:53:21,410
This is crucially important because to understand what truth is, is to see that if it's predicated only of sentences and beliefs,

503
00:53:21,410 --> 00:53:30,590
not of arguments, and to understand what an argument is, is to see that it can't be true or false.

504
00:53:30,590 --> 00:53:36,430
I think you can see that with the argument about the wording, which is.

505
00:53:36,430 --> 00:53:42,060
You can see what that it can't be. It was a valid argument.

506
00:53:42,060 --> 00:53:48,750
Right. That differentiated from truth.

507
00:53:48,750 --> 00:53:53,970
The truth is only contained in that argument.

508
00:53:53,970 --> 00:54:02,040
Nobody would say that, which is better than what you saw in terms of the way the argument is constructed.

509
00:54:02,040 --> 00:54:13,350
The reasoning was valid. Yup. I'm not sure how to unpack what you're saying here, except to say that that's actually.

510
00:54:13,350 --> 00:54:17,190
Oh, yes. Not me. That was an argument.

511
00:54:17,190 --> 00:54:25,170
It's not argument because we're saying that that is true and we're offering his reasons for believing it's truth.

512
00:54:25,170 --> 00:54:30,800
The truth of that and the truth of that.

513
00:54:30,800 --> 00:54:35,650
OK. So the argument itself is a good one.

514
00:54:35,650 --> 00:54:39,730
And you use the word valid to we'll get on to about valid at some point next week, I think.

515
00:54:39,730 --> 00:54:44,640
But so that's that's the argument itself.

516
00:54:44,640 --> 00:54:54,710
Can't be true or false. But the sentences that constitute the arguments can, of course, be either true or false.

517
00:54:54,710 --> 00:54:59,820
So if. Does it make up?

518
00:54:59,820 --> 00:55:06,840
Well, that's very important and we'll come to that later. So, as that sounds, is actually contained three assertions.

519
00:55:06,840 --> 00:55:10,860
It contains three sentences, each of which could be used as an assertion.

520
00:55:10,860 --> 00:55:16,590
And in order for a sentence severe recession, it's got to be asserted. And I'm not really asserting this.

521
00:55:16,590 --> 00:55:26,530
I'm just talking about it. But yes, so we have three potential assertions, each of which is either true or false.

522
00:55:26,530 --> 00:55:34,380
And together they make up the arguments because two are being offered as reasons for believing the truth of the other.

523
00:55:34,380 --> 00:55:37,900
Right. OK. A good argument. This is coming on to your point.

524
00:55:37,900 --> 00:55:45,600
Now, add to that a good argument must have at least two characteristics.

525
00:55:45,600 --> 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 --> 00:55:54,840
These are the two. The conclusion was follow from the premises.

527
00:55:54,840 --> 00:55:59,130
Okay. And the premises must all be true. Okay.

528
00:55:59,130 --> 00:56:05,040
If both those things are true, you've got a good argument.

529
00:56:05,040 --> 00:56:11,790
If one of these things if the conclusion doesn't follow, then even if the premises are true,

530
00:56:11,790 --> 00:56:17,880
you haven't got a convincing argument or if the premise is not true.

531
00:56:17,880 --> 00:56:28,020
And even though the conclusion follows that you haven't got a good argument in that way because the premise is false.

532
00:56:28,020 --> 00:56:35,400
But having said that, we're interested only in argument in this session.

533
00:56:35,400 --> 00:56:38,910
We're not actually interested in the truth of the premises at all.

534
00:56:38,910 --> 00:56:47,040
We're interested only in the whether the arguments follow from sorry, one conclusion follows from the premises.

535
00:56:47,040 --> 00:56:54,660
So as logicians, generally, we're not in the business of going out to the world to see where the premises are, true or false.

536
00:56:54,660 --> 00:56:58,680
We're only in the business of seeing whether the relation between the premises and

537
00:56:58,680 --> 00:57:04,170
the conclusion is such that the are the conclusion follows from the premises.

538
00:57:04,170 --> 00:57:10,580
And as we'll see next week, there are loads of different ways in which conclusions can follow from premises.

539
00:57:10,580 --> 00:57:18,420
But so I, I would often talk about an arguments being good, even though the premises.

540
00:57:18,420 --> 00:57:22,390
I mean, let's take this one. Okay.

541
00:57:22,390 --> 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 --> 00:57:32,110
I mean actually the premises are all false aren't they.

543
00:57:32,110 --> 00:57:36,690
They're both false. There are only two premises of this argument that they are false. It's not Friday.

544
00:57:36,690 --> 00:57:41,980
It's Monday. And Marijan always wears jeans on Fridays also false.

545
00:57:41,980 --> 00:57:47,130
No, let's take it from me. So that's not a good argument from the point of view of the premises.

546
00:57:47,130 --> 00:57:53,340
But as far as the 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 --> 00:58:07,590
But as we're just talking about the arguments in order to say what's a good argument, what isn't a good argument, that will do.

549
00:58:07,590 --> 00:58:14,820
If that's a state, that's a conclusive argument, isn't it? If the premises are true there, the conclusion would have to be true.

550
00:58:14,820 --> 00:58:24,800
So it's a very good argument. So let's the premises.

551
00:58:24,800 --> 00:58:29,790
No, because if the premises is true here, the conclusion would have to be true, wouldn't it?

552
00:58:29,790 --> 00:58:35,720
Well, which is something. Well, but not Matthew died for a variety.

553
00:58:35,720 --> 00:58:43,500
Well, then it wouldn't be true that mine was were students or I would say my name always wore jeans on the Friday.

554
00:58:43,500 --> 00:58:50,430
Maybe. OK. What do you mean?

555
00:58:50,430 --> 00:59:00,740
I don't I'm not sure. Did people wear jeans at all? What is true is that the facts apprentice's true.

556
00:59:00,740 --> 00:59:04,400
If if there's actually urofsky a huge philosophical question there.

557
00:59:04,400 --> 00:59:08,480
But let me just say yes, because that's what makes a sentence true.

558
00:59:08,480 --> 00:59:12,300
Then it's true. Oh, company.

559
00:59:12,300 --> 00:59:17,070
I said that. That's awful. But then why do you get sick?

560
00:59:17,070 --> 00:59:25,940
You always say that you always wear jeans on Friday because know.

561
00:59:25,940 --> 00:59:36,240
Well, I hope I find Friday's employer right. Oh, I'm sorry.

562
00:59:36,240 --> 00:59:41,130
This is your high profile I think we're going to be looking at next week,

563
00:59:41,130 --> 00:59:46,140
which is the inductive arguments that inductive arguments always take us further

564
00:59:46,140 --> 00:59:51,240
than we can actually go by claiming something like swans are always white.

565
00:59:51,240 --> 00:59:59,970
Marijan always wears jeans on Friday. But but you can still say that's true.

566
00:59:59,970 --> 01:00:07,150
We are not going to get into knowledge. The philosophy is definitely not on this curriculum.

567
01:00:07,150 --> 01:00:15,830
Okay, going back to what I was saying this.

568
01:00:15,830 --> 01:00:24,750
OK, so you understand the difference between the truth of the premise and the conclusions following from the the premises,

569
01:00:24,750 --> 01:00:32,700
that that's the important thing. And it's because what makes an argument good is that the conclusion follows from the premises

570
01:00:32,700 --> 01:00:38,610
that you've got to distinguish the goodness of an argument from the truth of the premises.

571
01:00:38,610 --> 01:00:46,320
Truth, just because truth is a good thing and validity says is a good thing, doesn't make them the same thing.

572
01:00:46,320 --> 01:00:51,460
That's the important thing. We mustn't just take validity as a sort of general proof word.

573
01:00:51,460 --> 01:00:56,300
And in the same way, truth isn't just a general pro word.

574
01:00:56,300 --> 01:01:00,510
OK. Let's have a look at these arguments. Okay. One of them is good. One of them is bad.

575
01:01:00,510 --> 01:01:20,570
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
01:01:20,570 --> 01:01:37,680
Who's decided? All right, but we'll time.

577
01:01:37,680 --> 01:01:44,200
OK. Who's decided, OK, that's a good argument.

578
01:01:44,200 --> 01:01:48,240
Yes. Yes, that's a good argument. Well done. Yes.

579
01:01:48,240 --> 01:01:53,940
Absolutely. See, that needs come to this class. No, you're absolutely right.

580
01:01:53,940 --> 01:02:00,210
This is a deductive argument. It gives us absolute certainty in the following sense.

581
01:02:00,210 --> 01:02:06,750
If these premises and I'll read out the premises, if it's Monday, the lecture will finish at three thirty.

582
01:02:06,750 --> 01:02:11,100
It is Monday. Therefore, the lecture will finish at three thirty.

583
01:02:11,100 --> 01:02:17,350
If these premises are both true, this conclusion would have to be true, wouldn't it?

584
01:02:17,350 --> 01:02:21,660
It couldn't be false. If those two premises are both true.

585
01:02:21,660 --> 01:02:31,680
So the truth of the premises is preserved in the truth of the conclusion that you couldn't have those two premises.

586
01:02:31,680 --> 01:02:40,430
True, that conclusion not. So if you believe those two premises, rationally speaking, you must believe that conclusion.

587
01:02:40,430 --> 01:02:48,780
Okay. That's what it is to be a rational animal. And if instead I say you're wasting your time from these lectures, if you knew that,

588
01:02:48,780 --> 01:02:54,480
of course, that's nonsense because you're all rational animals, you have to be rational on it.

589
01:02:54,480 --> 01:03:00,780
You wouldn't be there if you were because you sold off the leaflets or whatever you saw and you thought, that sounds interesting.

590
01:03:00,780 --> 01:03:04,300
I would like to go to that lecture. That lecture starts at two o'clock on Monday.

591
01:03:04,300 --> 01:03:09,150
What other day? This is the moment. Therefore, I will go to that lecture hall.

592
01:03:09,150 --> 01:03:14,890
Did you not? You had loads of reasons. So we're talking theoretical arguments here.

593
01:03:14,890 --> 01:03:19,110
But, of course, actually arguments the most practive practical thing in the world.

594
01:03:19,110 --> 01:03:26,400
Your piece of practical reasoning led you here. So each one of you is rational.

595
01:03:26,400 --> 01:03:34,020
What we're doing in these lectures is learning how to explicate our capacity for reason.

596
01:03:34,020 --> 01:03:38,970
Okay. You know, whether confusion follows from premises or not.

597
01:03:38,970 --> 01:03:44,370
You ask why when you argue in the past with your sons, daughters, wives or whomever, you know,

598
01:03:44,370 --> 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.

599
01:03:50,070 --> 01:03:55,590
You say, as you read the leader in the newspapers, you hear the person on television or something like that,

600
01:03:55,590 --> 01:04:02,180
something that's out of your intuitions or your rational intuitions and telling you what you need to know.

601
01:04:02,180 --> 01:04:10,900
But what you're doing in these classes is learning how to make explicit your intuitions, what what your intuitions are telling you.

602
01:04:10,900 --> 01:04:14,340
OK. So your intuition is telling quite categorically that that's a good idea.

603
01:04:14,340 --> 01:04:25,200
That's about all. What's wrong with this one? That's just proof that the science ordinary guy is guilty.

604
01:04:25,200 --> 01:04:28,980
Yes. Okay. Everything I heard there is is is good.

605
01:04:28,980 --> 01:04:35,700
The fact is that. OK. Let me ask you a question. Could it be the case that these two premises are true?

606
01:04:35,700 --> 01:04:39,520
And yet this conclusion falls. OK.

607
01:04:39,520 --> 01:04:47,490
Can anyone give me a counterexample to this argument? Let me read them out again for the people who can't hear.

608
01:04:47,490 --> 01:04:53,550
If it's Monday, the lecture will finish at three thirty. The lecture will finish at three thirty.

609
01:04:53,550 --> 01:05:00,450
Therefore, it's Monday. OK. Can anyone give me a counterexample to that argument?

610
01:05:00,450 --> 01:05:07,110
A situation in which both those premises are true and that conclusion is false.

611
01:05:07,110 --> 01:05:13,600
A situation in which both those promises are true and that confusion is false.

612
01:05:13,600 --> 01:05:18,090
On Tuesday, Minutemen's three. Good. Well done all.

613
01:05:18,090 --> 01:05:23,340
Wednesday. Thursday, Friday. Exactly. This says, If it's Monday, intellectual finish at three thirty.

614
01:05:23,340 --> 01:05:30,810
This merely says the lecture will finish at three thirty. It could be Monday, but it might not be OK.

615
01:05:30,810 --> 01:05:35,790
So there is a situation in which both these premises are true and this conclusion is false.

616
01:05:35,790 --> 01:05:39,240
Therefore, this is a bad argument. It's an invalid argument.

617
01:05:39,240 --> 01:05:45,020
It's actually an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent figures.

618
01:05:45,020 --> 01:05:51,810
You see that the acts that led to the lectures, the arguments about whether they are they look very similar, but of course they're not.

619
01:05:51,810 --> 01:05:59,530
Because this one's taken the antecedent as the second premise and this one's taken with consequence.

620
01:05:59,530 --> 01:06:05,580
That's the second premise. And we'll be learning a lot more about fallacies later on in the course.

621
01:06:05,580 --> 01:06:08,130
But that's it for today.

622
01:06:08,130 --> 01:06:16,740
Next week, we're going to look at the all the different sorts of argument they the arguments that all and how to distinguish them from each other.

623
01:06:16,740 --> 01:06:22,000
And then we're going to get on to learning how to set them out properly and how to evaluate them.

624
01:06:22,000 --> 01:06:32,550
OK, we've got courtroom now for four questions. If you haven't got a car bath.

625
01:06:32,550 --> 01:06:39,190
No. That's easy. You can try three Heysel Hazels.

626
01:06:39,190 --> 01:06:45,160
He might be funny, but I doubt it. Who is this bathroom of.

627
01:06:45,160 --> 01:06:54,660
And towers in the. And what does he say? He didn't think a chair was only a concept.

628
01:06:54,660 --> 01:06:58,860
It was Bishop Barclay. George Barclay who lived.

629
01:06:58,860 --> 01:07:10,290
I don't know where he lived. I'm sorry I didn't remember dates. He believes that our only reason for believing that something exists is because

630
01:07:10,290 --> 01:07:18,630
we can either see it now or that we could see it under some other circumstances.

631
01:07:18,630 --> 01:07:23,340
So if I claim. Okay.

632
01:07:23,340 --> 01:07:28,220
What makes it true that this left turn exists so we can sit here?

633
01:07:28,220 --> 01:07:37,470
It. We can touch it. All sorts of things. What's more, we also believe that were we to come back tonight at midnight.

634
01:07:37,470 --> 01:07:42,200
Nobody had moved us and saw. No all other things being equal. It would still be here.

635
01:07:42,200 --> 01:07:47,040
OK. So there we have an appeal to actual perceptions.

636
01:07:47,040 --> 01:07:53,670
Okay. We can see it now. And we've got an appeal to counter factual perceptions.

637
01:07:53,670 --> 01:07:57,750
If we came at 12 o'clock, we would be able to see it.

638
01:07:57,750 --> 01:08:08,670
And Barclay says, you give me a reason for thinking that anything exists that doesn't depend upon actual or counterfactual perceptions.

639
01:08:08,670 --> 01:08:10,650
Sorry. Well, let me rephrase that.

640
01:08:10,650 --> 01:08:17,760
You will not be able to give me a reason to think that anything exists that doesn't appeal to one or other of those two.

641
01:08:17,760 --> 01:08:27,860
Therefore, if you if something is unconceivable, then you have no reason to be desists.

642
01:08:27,860 --> 01:08:32,370
Concept what we experience concepts all the time.

643
01:08:32,370 --> 01:08:40,700
Do we exist? Wouldn't be think of a concept is a constituency for thought.

644
01:08:40,700 --> 01:08:49,990
So as long as you think you think, then we will think in concepts and we have reason for thinking concepts exist.

645
01:08:49,990 --> 01:08:56,940
Sorry, is that the same sort of thing as furphy collapsing in the middle of some forest somewhere?

646
01:08:56,940 --> 01:09:02,170
No. Yes. I mean, the fact is, if you were in the forest, you would hear it.

647
01:09:02,170 --> 01:09:08,710
Yes, you might lose is. In other words, you're happy that it would make a noise.

648
01:09:08,710 --> 01:09:16,990
No, for. I mean, your reason for thinking that noise exists is that you would hear it if you were there.

649
01:09:16,990 --> 01:09:22,780
So that's a counterfactual perception that you were basing that on.

650
01:09:22,780 --> 01:09:26,650
What Berkeley is very simple and he's a fascinating philosopher, actually.

651
01:09:26,650 --> 01:09:33,370
He thinks that physical objects are made up of ideas of ours.

652
01:09:33,370 --> 01:09:40,750
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.

653
01:09:40,750 --> 01:09:46,540
He just means that my idea of this lectern is an idea made up of part of solidity.

654
01:09:46,540 --> 01:09:53,590
The idea that if I do that, I won't be able to push any further. That's a perception notice.

655
01:09:53,590 --> 01:10:07,740
That's a perception. It's a bundle of perceptions. You said as well that we only have second accounts of everything because.

656
01:10:07,740 --> 01:10:15,440
What song did that sound? What we say is actually the result of a rapper.

657
01:10:15,440 --> 01:10:24,210
Rabson in the brain. Say something that's. Computer ransom, and that's translated into servers away servers are kind of like, I think I've sense data,

658
01:10:24,210 --> 01:10:34,230
perhaps so said that we never see the object directly, we just see the surface comments are from, you know, some play on screen.

659
01:10:34,230 --> 01:10:39,510
But there are two ways to think about sets data. One way is now very old fashioned.

660
01:10:39,510 --> 01:10:44,850
We don't see people and that's the way the Russell victims died and people at that thought.

661
01:10:44,850 --> 01:10:49,020
Which is that we never see the thing itself. Yeah.

662
01:10:49,020 --> 01:10:53,960
We only ever see it an idea in our minds. And so why would you think that's answer?

663
01:10:53,960 --> 01:10:58,560
Because you can never be sure that. I mean, are you really sure that I'm here?

664
01:10:58,560 --> 01:11:04,300
I mean, your reasons for being for believing that I'm here is you can see me here, me and saw it.

665
01:11:04,300 --> 01:11:13,470
But couldn't it be with you? Exactly as it is now. And yes, it not to be true that I'm here and I'm for.

666
01:11:13,470 --> 01:11:17,240
When you say no. Have you never had a lucid dream with it?

667
01:11:17,240 --> 01:11:21,690
You said, I'm sorry. You said.

668
01:11:21,690 --> 01:11:30,000
I did. 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.

669
01:11:30,000 --> 01:11:35,540
You'll probably have all of tonight. It's a dream.

670
01:11:35,540 --> 01:11:40,620
Jeannie would be one, but. But here's another one. I mean, what what makes it.

671
01:11:40,620 --> 01:11:47,130
What do you think at the moment is that you won't have a perception's arse off me?

672
01:11:47,130 --> 01:11:57,150
What's causing those perceptions is me. And what's more, your perceptions are a good guide to what I like.

673
01:11:57,150 --> 01:12:16,700
But look. If we talk about the causal relation, if we think that a mass cause B or sorry A causes B, we have to know about both A and B, don't we?

674
01:12:16,700 --> 01:12:21,440
We have to see that they're constantly conjoin, they're correlated, something like that.

675
01:12:21,440 --> 01:12:29,090
We can't. So we've got to be something here, if you like, to see that they can be correlated.

676
01:12:29,090 --> 01:12:38,420
But if you will think your B is a chair and A is your idea of a chair.

677
01:12:38,420 --> 01:12:45,830
And you can't get outside your ideas. And here is where you stand with respect to your perceptions, isn't it?

678
01:12:45,830 --> 01:12:51,820
How can you get outside your perceptions to see what causes them?

679
01:12:51,820 --> 01:13:01,330
You see what I mean, because you have got. In a dream, you could have a little talk about dreams.

680
01:13:01,330 --> 01:13:13,610
I want to live up to that with something as objective fact that we have existing these are called change.

681
01:13:13,610 --> 01:13:24,870
Yes. Let me ask the question again. If we're talking about your idea of a share, your ideas or the chair concepts to chair the song and the chairs,

682
01:13:24,870 --> 01:13:34,140
can you get outside your idea of a chair in order to see that it's caused by a chair?

683
01:13:34,140 --> 01:13:38,590
Now, if it can be put into me exactly as it is now, here I am.

684
01:13:38,590 --> 01:13:42,270
Look at this challenge, Commissioner, hearing the council's things.

685
01:13:42,270 --> 01:13:50,370
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,

686
01:13:50,370 --> 01:13:57,060
well, I must have experienced the chair before and will to be able to do this.

687
01:13:57,060 --> 01:14:03,510
I could say, well, why should I think in the first place that there is something that's causing my perceptions?

688
01:14:03,510 --> 01:14:12,160
All I've got is my perceptions. I can't get outside my perceptions to adopt this perspective on them.

689
01:14:12,160 --> 01:14:19,240
Can I? Sir, are you saying you can create the idea of projecting your mind without actually having seen maybe not recreate them?

690
01:14:19,240 --> 01:14:25,480
It may be an evil demon. What I'm giving you is the Cartesian thought experiment.

691
01:14:25,480 --> 01:14:32,310
And the idea being that if you push what you know to the final degree,

692
01:14:32,310 --> 01:14:39,840
you'll see that actually you're the only reason you believe in the physical universe and things outside yourself,

693
01:14:39,840 --> 01:14:50,910
and that includes your own body is because you assume that your perceptions are caused by something outside yourself, outside your mind,

694
01:14:50,910 --> 01:14:58,740
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.

695
01:14:58,740 --> 01:15:04,230
Because what makes you think that there's something outside causing your perceptions?

696
01:15:04,230 --> 01:15:14,410
If all you can see is the perceptions themselves, rather of the causal relation between your perceptions and whatever's causing them,

697
01:15:14,410 --> 01:15:22,000
we can see it this way in the critical reasoning. What is your reaction, control?

698
01:15:22,000 --> 01:15:28,510
What's your knowledge? I give you time to get me out of this new.

699
01:15:28,510 --> 01:15:34,600
That's nice, but all you talk about is one experience after another, aren't you?

700
01:15:34,600 --> 01:15:38,740
I mean, there are some perceptions of mine that obey my will.

701
01:15:38,740 --> 01:15:43,300
And there are other perceptions. Mine, the troops that share doesn't obey my will stop.

702
01:15:43,300 --> 01:15:48,880
That particular perception doesn't have been my will, whereas others do.

703
01:15:48,880 --> 01:15:56,910
I think that I've introduced the Cartesian thought experiment with too little time to convince you.

704
01:15:56,910 --> 01:16:01,240
I mean, you can go away and read the first meditation. It's very easy to read.

705
01:16:01,240 --> 01:16:08,650
It's actually it doesn't take much longer to read them use.

706
01:16:08,650 --> 01:16:12,430
Barclays, Barclays, I did. I mean,

707
01:16:12,430 --> 01:16:18,190
the Cartesian thought experiments completely revolutionised philosophy because it

708
01:16:18,190 --> 01:16:24,190
breathalysed revolutionised all belief that we could claim to have knowledge.

709
01:16:24,190 --> 01:16:36,790
Barclay attempted to get over that because if we. OK, here's the world and here's our minds.

710
01:16:36,790 --> 01:16:46,410
And here's the evil demon. Hey, Day Decors has shown the once this is in place and you see that could be exactly as it is.

711
01:16:46,410 --> 01:16:52,230
Whatever this is like, you need to say something about our knowledge of the external world.

712
01:16:52,230 --> 01:16:59,190
And what Barclays' doing is he's remaking the world in the mind.

713
01:16:59,190 --> 01:17:09,360
So if there is nothing more to a physical object than a set of perceptions and this the only thing of which we can have knowledge is our perceptions,

714
01:17:09,360 --> 01:17:15,840
then there's no reason why we can't have knowledge of physical objects if they are perceptions.

715
01:17:15,840 --> 01:17:24,300
So Barclay was trying to show that we do have knowledge despite the Cartesian thought experiment anyway.

716
01:17:24,300 --> 01:17:28,620
There is no way we can would like to know more about the past.

717
01:17:28,620 --> 01:17:32,260
Come to another set of lectures.

718
01:17:32,260 --> 01:17:48,060
I see there is time for one more question, if anyone would like to read this one, but this lady has told us people, some media.

719
01:17:48,060 --> 01:17:55,710
No. What do you know what they're doing?

720
01:17:55,710 --> 01:17:58,200
Well, they're all goods on the bill. They wouldn't be on the reading list.

721
01:17:58,200 --> 01:18:03,870
The short introduction to logic is very interesting, and that's very easy to read.

722
01:18:03,870 --> 01:18:12,940
Very short. So I'll have to get the ethics book by is only short.

723
01:18:12,940 --> 01:18:17,260
And the leaflets. The ones I never read.

724
01:18:17,260 --> 01:18:26,280
OK, well, if you look outside, they'll find you'll find the leaflets a little thing and you should find reading is not just in the book.

725
01:18:26,280 --> 01:18:29,630
OK, sorry.

726
01:18:29,630 --> 01:18:34,510
Sounds good there. Yes I know it sounds pretty, it's very irritating.

727
01:18:34,510 --> 01:18:40,440
It you can get to talk and listen to what you get out there.

728
01:18:40,440 --> 01:18:57,350
It's, it's the reason it's irritating is it's a very different form. If you can't find Salaam's and let me know I can try.

729
01:18:57,350 --> 01:19:02,590
I can't lose by that, sorry. It's all the reason. OK.

730
01:19:02,590 --> 01:19:09,688
I think we'll stop that. Thank you. Coming. See you next week.