Youtube Critical Thinking

Youtube Critical Thinking-4
The second reason,[br]though, is a good reason to believe that Monty[br]won't be at the party.If he's really shy and[br]rarely goes to parties, then it's probable that he[br]won't be at tonight's party.

Tags: Do Your Math Homework OnlineEssay Pay ForwardBoard Of Studies Creative Writing BelongingEssay About Romeo And JulietEssay On Population Control PoliciesDonut Shop Business PlanSample Abstract For Research Paper ApaService Quality In Banks Research Paper

So I'm gonna put up here, on the left, the orange argument, which is the second response that your friend gave, "Monty's really shy" and[br]"He rarely goes to parties." On the right we'll put[br]the purple argument, "Monty's in Beijing" and "He can't get from Beijing[br]to the party in time." Both of them have the same conclusion, "Monty won't be at the party." Now, as I said before, both of these are good arguments, they both do give you reason to believe the conclusion, i.e., both of them have premises which support the conclusion, but there's an important difference between the two arguments[br]that I want to point out.

If you consider the purple argument, and think about what those premises say, you'll notice that if[br]those premises are true, if Monty's in Beijing,[br]and can't get from Beijing to the party in time, then it must be true that Monty won't be at the party. In such an argument, where the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, we call the argument deductive.

So, for example, if you found out that your friend was[br]the person who decided who was going to be invited to the party, then the fact that she can't stand Monty and wants to have a good time would give you a good reason to believe that Monty won't be at the party, because it would give you reason to believe that she didn't invite him. Those two premises[br]considered in themselves give you no reason to believe that Monty won't be at the party.

Okay, our last topic is to distinguish two different types of arguments.

So it's not morally right or morally good to believe something on[br]the basis of good reasons.

Similarly, it's not morally[br]wrong, or evil, or wicked to believe something on[br]the basis of a bad reason.

And here I can explain a[br]little bit more about why.

If you consider what the[br]red argument's premises say, that your friend can't stand Monty, and she wants to have a good time, and think about their relationship to the conclusion of the argument, you'll see that those[br]statements don't make that conclusion any[br]more likely to be true.

In that case, we say that the argument supports the conclusion.

Good arguments support their conclusions, and bad arguments don't[br]support their conclusions.


Comments Youtube Critical Thinking

The Latest from ©