This has got to be one of the most awesome teachers i've seen, great lesson and well presented.

Thanks! That's very high praise -- I left FSU after the semester these were shot, and have about another 200 videos over in my personal channel, so if you liked these, you might enjoy those as well

Well, that works out good! Down the line, I'm, planning on doing a new, improved series of videos on Critical Thinking and Argumentation

This guy is very easy to listen to. Good teacher. (ha)

Moore and Parker, Critical Thinking, 10th ed -- though I ought to mention that's the textbook we had to use

You're a great teacher, Sir. Thank you for the video.

I am indeed -- these vids were shot while I was still at FSU, back when KZread allowed individuals only short uploads, so we put them in the institutional channel. Since July 2011, I've been up in New York, shooting Philosophy videos for my own channel

Watched your video and I am impressed with your knowledge. This helps me with my class work.

Lastly -- thanks very much Swanseauk for the comment. Nice to see other people are watching -- perhaps even getting something out of -- these videos, which were an interesting experiment in lecture capture

How relaxing watching you. Having live good examples are definitely strong point that you should have thumbs up for. :)

Great lecture, Thanks to the uploader!

Thank you very much for these lectures. Very much appreciated.

Thank you Dr. Sadler.

I really enjoyed the lecture. It is funny hearing someone verbalize the things I think about and often times feel I'm the only one that gets it. Funny because you spoke about human nature to feel better than others and I never considered that as an emotional fallacy. I will be viewing the remainder of your lectures.

You're welcome. Glad you liked it

Well. . . I can't speak for KZread's own longevity, but for my part, I can say that the videos I've posted -- and my own channel -- will remain available, and I'll be adding to them. Some new lectures I've got planned to produce will be by subscription only through ReasonIO (once we get that feature up and running). But all the content already out there hosted at present by KZread will stay there and remain free, as will new content uploaded into KZread

Unfortunately KZread only permits very short answers. Here's another thing to keep in mind about the feeling/emotion/mood -- affectivity matter: these videos are recorded lectures from a 100-level required Critical Thinking course -- not an upper level seminar in theory of emotion. I'm using terms like "emotion" or "mood" in the much looser sense that my audience understands -- precisely so I can use the time I've got to focus on some Critical Thinking terms used in a more rigorous sense.

Very good professor, I enjoyed this. Philosophy 104 mid-term on Sunday!

Do you happen to know what textbook you were referring to in this lesson? Thank you, I love your work. I have learned so much from your videos.

Thanks! I'm glad you found it useful

You are certainly right to point out that, in certain, mainly recent Anglophone theories of emotions, distinctions get made between emotions, feelings, and moods, and that the way the distinction is articulated is on whether they have an object or not. I am guessing that you assume that such theories are either the only, or the best -- otherwise you'd not be taking me to task over the distinction. But, there are many classic theories of emotion which do not make that set of distinctions.

Like your teachings

Pure awesomeness! Thanks. :)

Thanks for your response. I found them in one of the other videos although you didn’t name them but used them as examples.

I suppose. You'd probably be surprised, though, to find what my political views are, which don't jibe precisely with those of most of my colleagues in higher ed, or those of many of my students, and typically aren't revealed in my classes

Thank you for your video

In my opinion, an experiment such as the one you've described can't be just about resisting temptation. It's also about your willingness to believe that the person offering you a reward for your patience is going to keep their word! A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, you know. And in real life, those who choose to take someone else's word for it and wait for birds in the bush may very well end up having none. Not trying to be deep, just thinking out loud.

@theflamingone8729

6 ай бұрын

Good point, it's always presented as reflecting the character of the subjects, and overlooking their perception of the testers.

Thanks for the upload! Enjoyed the lecture. :-)

What is the name of the book he's referring too? Can it be purchased on Amazon or any where books are sold?

I'm glad you found the CT lectures useful. If you like these, come on over to my personal channel -- many more lectures available over there

It's essentially producing a different argument, which is supposed to oppose the other person's argument (concluding that they ought to have X) The new argument would presumably run: You don't need X. You only deserve X if you need X. So, therefore, you don't deserve X

Interesting the textbook uses only Limbaugh as an example for that particular fallacy of the emotional argument, but that in itself is a fallacy - the teacher had to point out it happens on "both" sides, but that again is a fallacy, assuming there are only 2 sides. Fallacies within fallacies within fallacies. Great teacher though, wish I had more like him in school.

This fallacy is an argument of Appeal to Emotion or Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam). It is a type of argument of a person who wants to persuade or get someone else sympathy out of pity. This also applies on getting the sympathy of a group of people, instead of the first providing rational evidence/s. c",)

Well, you're right -- there's more than 2 sides. I don't recall having said, though, that there are ONLY two sides. And, keep in mind, this is for 100-level students, and has to be done in under an hour.

will your channel and videos always be on youtube? im going for a philosophy major and find these very informative. i believe they'll give me a great head start and much thanks for posting your lectures!

@DangerDave67 Thanks. Yes, it's kind of unfortunate that we get so little time with the students to actually cultivate Critical Thinking in any systematic way that might stick with most of them. I'm not teaching Critical Thinking this semester or next -- changed from FSU to Marist College -- but if you liked this video series of class sessions, you might check out the vids I've got over on my channel from this semester -- Ethics and Intro to Philosophy

Love the tie.

I watched all the logical fallacy video’s you uploaded and I must say that I’m impressed by your teaching method. Very good! Did you also do the post hoc ergo propter hoc and the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because I can’t find them?

@irishcoffeytwo Thanks -- many more available on my personal channel. The trouble with the ties is that I'm also very tall!

Well, most of them were 18-21. We had a few older students -- mainly veterans and military dependents -- some of my favorite students to teach

Glad to hear it!

@DangerDave67 It's quite all right, so please don't worry about it. I actually use my weight as an example sometimes in class -- particularly when I am talking about the disconnect between what we know we ought to do and what we in fact do, or in Ethics classes as an example of immoderation with respect to appetites, so for me it's fair game. No feelings hurt, no harm done

Not very often -- though I do like his work on emotions. I tend to draw much more on pre-Solomon thinkers. . . .

@DangerDave67 hahaha! No, I'm just a bit paunchy, something I hope to change this coming year

If I did those, with that particular textbook, that semester, they'd be in the Inductive Reasoning parts. I might not have gotten to them, though

Aristotle tends to be my starting point, when it comes to the emotions and reasoning

Interestingb video just continue

… and the thing is even, that ‚I feel‘ can in almost any case be expected to be ‚pseudo-emotion‘ in terms of merely certain rhetorics. If the claimed emotion were actual, no conscious argument would trail… one either feels or observes ‚feeling‘ and points to finding of the latter.

@FierBarca1899 I don't really mind, actually! It's fair game, since I sometimes use it as an example

Thanks sir

I have a test on Fallacies in reasoning. Im talking medical course so Critical thinking is mandatory. do you have any other way or trick that i can understand and remember fallacies in reasoning? is there any video that you recommend??

you're welcome!

Dr. Sadler, what is the name of the textbook that you're using?

I love this stuff, I resonate with it

@reasoniocritthinking

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks -- you might check out my channels then. My main channel has 600+ philosophy videos. I've also recently started the new channel I'm writing this post from

@beatakrejcova

9 жыл бұрын

Great! Thank you for this fantastic gift! As a perpetual knowledge seeker I'll watch each & everyone of those videos!

@ShortySoReal

8 жыл бұрын

+Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argumentation (ReasonIO) what book does your class use?

@reasoniocritthinking

8 жыл бұрын

Well, this class was from 4 years ago, when I was teaching at FSU. For that class, we used Moore and Parker's Critical Thinking, 9th ed

@sinemkadrioglu8194

2 жыл бұрын

@@reasoniocritthinking what would be your advice for the book today

Do a lot of practice examples, and chart out the structure of the fallacies -- that's the best advice I can give you

It certainly had -- and I'm sure still has -- its problems!

Well, if the context is that "I'm the mom" is said basically to end argument about something -- and it's not some issue where "being the mom" really is relevant in determining who calls the shots -- then it's essentially just asserting Mom's position as an authority. This could be simply an appeal to (false) authority. Or it might be -- when unpacked -- an appeal to fear (I'm the mom, and if you don't do what I say. . . )

hello. First, I would like to thank you for your efforts and for sharing such these useful videos with us, they are so interesting and great to know about. Second, I have some questions about critical thinking course,to put you in the picture, I'm a student of English studies, and I'm studying critical thinking as a main element this year, so if it's possible, can you help me to clear the imbeguity which I have about the types of fallacy, I can't separate between the for major types which are : I ] fallacies related to audiences that is dividing to: ( 1/ Ad Hominem ; 2/ Ad populum ; 3/ appeal to tradion; 4/ straw argument). II ] fallacies related to language that is dividing to : 1) Equivocation; 2) Amphiboly; 3) Emotive language. III ] Fallacies of grounding : 1) beginning the question; 2) Non ? . VI ] fallacies of faulty reasoning: 1) Analogy; 2) Generalization; 3) Cause. I'm trying my best to understand all this types, and I'll be glad if you make it easy for me to understand them better by giving me brief definitions supported with examples. thank you professor in advance and many thanks for giving me a hand of help.

@uneskhartit

8 жыл бұрын

+Majid Elkhattabi Your point is really interesting. I have googled the types of fallacies and everytime I get different taxonomies. This is the one I guess to the point: Major types of fallacies are *Fallacies of Relevance *Fallacies of Presumption *Fallacies of Ambiguity

No -- if one lacks consistency, and "plays favorites", it's not critical thinking. Many people use the term "critical thinking" as a kind of smokescreen for their own lack of critical thinking -- from my experience with both atheists and religious beleivers, the proportion between actual critical thinkers and non-critical thinkers seems to be roughly equal

Just curious, Mr Sadler, what age were the students in this class? BTW, you're definitely rocking it with the beard and glasses look. Very spiffy!

Brilliant little lecture. It helped clarify a lot of things for me. PS If you can't drop the weight right now, just wear a longer tie. And keep on educating. You're very good at it!

@jgizzy Thanks! Couldn't have done the bio better myself

Well, a No to both of those. Aristotle is not every or even most philosophers' starting point. And, no, those of us who think through Aristotle's works aren't doing so because of groupthink. As a matter of fact, to actually be an Aristotelian these days is often to place oneself out of the group.

play is also learning ^^

Could very well be. I make no claims to any great originality in my work!

@DangerDave67 Also, you're a good lecturer, and this information is, well, critical to building an informed public. Thank you for posting. And, one more time for good measure, I am a sorry jerk. Cheers.

professional teachers

Hahaha! I used to be, long ago, but have done much to tone that side down and hide it away as a mild-mannered professor

Dr. Gregory Sadler Ph.D has taught at Ball State University for 6 years, done a bunch of other stuff in between, and for Marist College starting mid 2011. He's the founder and President of ReasonIO, a consulting company that helps institutions and businesses regarding things like ethics, critical thinking, and philosophy, to name just a few. See the comment below our comments, the guy's username is 'gbisadler'. Click it and take a look at his videos for all your answers.

helpful

This guy looks like wisdom itself.

I'll take "mad cool" any day! Thanks, buddy

The Dude abides.

Hey, you're the lecture guy!

more controll over yr desires

"..fallacies, fallacies, one for you, two for me..."

Hahaha! glad you liked it -- if you head over to my channel, you can see a ton of other philosophy videos I'vfe shot since leaving FSU

What do you mean by difference between feelings and moods...???? it could be difference between emotions and moods not feelings and moods.??? because emotions have referent whereas moods have no referent.

His red tie is the opposite of Trump's red tie. I contribute.

subbed!

what type of argument is it to say: You don't "need" your pension or You don't "need" an assault rifle when the person has been promised a pension in their contract or the right to bear arms in the Constitution? Changing the root of the argument since "need" implies an emotional attachment to a right or promise, emotion takes over so the actual argument is overlooked?

the dude abides.

Oh, OK. I was just wondering.

YES THANK YOU A LOT- I GO TO MY SCHOOL AND THEN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK MY PROFESSOR WAS TALKING ABOUT WATCH THIS VIDEOS

Hahaha! Just wait until I get old!

this guy have rock star hair! 2 thumbs up! lol great video too!

No, I'm just a big guy, wearing a regular size tie

That's more of a shortcoming than a fallacy (pun intended)

He suffers from the "Tie Is Too Short Fallacy".

Why is "because I'm the mom" a fallacious argument? I mean, I don't doubt that it is, but exactly what is fallacious about it? Lol I'd like to be able to successfully refute this argument if I ever get the chance to.

Thanks! If you like these, come on over to my personal channel -- I left FSU almost 2 years ago

A hahahhah! You rock!

2+2 = 4 2x 2 =4 So it is inutile to multiply two numbers if you get same result by simply add them. Try to demonstrate the countrary !

Well, I hate to disappoint hopes, but no.

Yeah. . . exactly. . . I teach Philosophy because that's where the big money is! Hahaha

Is he wearing a kid's tie???

I am fearful, therefore I going to lead you into something that you or I should be fearful of? Not true!

Why is giving an A to someone who has only earned a B unfair to the other students? Is this unfairness bad to the students who got an A? How does it impact the students who got an A? If you say they could of done less effort, isn't that hindsight bias? If you say it gives them an unfair advantage, what exactly is this advantage? Access to a job market that will increase the supply and thus decrease the future wages of all? Isn't this a slippery slope argument as demand could increase too? Assuming that it's ethically wrong to give a student who only earned a B an A, is it also pragmatically wrong? Because the government of our society is dependent on the the ongoing violation of the non aggression principle through forceful taxation and the utility of education exists mostly in society, if we want to maintain integrity we cannot base policies on morality (as that would be hypocrisy due to double standards), but rather pragmatics. But I guess integrity is not important if you've already put pragmatics ahead of morality.

@AnonYmous-hg7cm

10 жыл бұрын

Are you suggesting the abolition of the B grade? If done uniformly (everywhere, all the time), it merely changes the meaning of the letters. By having less categories, the grades track reality less well. Though you haven't defined "fairness" in this context (the only meaning I can think of is: everyone gets the grade that matches their results), because the A and the C before your change and after mean different things, it seems obvious that they can't all be fair. I mean, if your notion of fairness depends on the link between results and grades, then of course the new A is weaker and/or the new C is stronger, so either it wasn't fair before or it's not fair now. If your notion of fairness doesn't depend on this link, then wtf? Finally, take it one step further, and ask yourself what happens if everybody gets an A. Does that mean that everybody wins? Do we all get better jobs? Maybe for a while (I must say that it would be hilarious; a generation of CEOs or whatever...) But sooner or later, people will realize the mathematical truth: if everybody gets an A, it's the same as if we all get an F, or no grade at all. It means nothing. (Btw, I'm not going for a slippery slope; I'm not saying your suggestion will lead to this. I'm just simplifying your scenario to showcase what I think is strange, or not-very-useful about it.) Is this kind of "equality" sound like "fairness" to you? Will some people do less effort knowing that this will happen? Are you kidding me? Most people study hard for their exams (often the night before) despite there being no long term benefits. Of course they do that to get a better grade. As for the thing with demand, perhaps you're right, and some CEOs are just sitting there, waiting for some student to get straight As... waiting for twenty years until, finally, through mandatory A grades, 6 million graduates meet his criterion, and now he hires them all, and increases the world's economy by 200%, but somehow I doubt it. Some employers surely have their numerical standards with no regards to the average grades of the population, but they can't be many, and they can't really be all that smart. Most employers will hire the best person for the job given the grades and their own prejudices. If we all get an A, then surely they will make their own test to separate the most qualified from the least. I'm not saying that the grade system is perfect, or that it could even be perfect. (one letter, or number can't possibly summarize a person's ability level.) But am I saying that I would rather hire a straight A than a straight F guy (or gal)? most of the time, yes. Ideally, I'd want to interview both of them, but I can't interview 10000 candidates. (btw, I'm a student right now, so I've never interviewed anyone for a job, but WHATEVER).

@ElectricityTaster

10 жыл бұрын

Samuel Buteau Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy. I'm talking about giving an A to someone who nearly achieved an A but got a B instead. The reason I think this is important is because a great psychologist might be shit at maths and history. If that person does not get an A then maybe they won't be able to go to the right school to realize their potential. It's absolutely backwards and wrong that to become a biologist or a horticulturalist you first need to be good at history and physics. The grading system is not a way to filter excellence out of the majority, but rather to filter short-term memory, discipline (carrying-out orders) and uncreativity out of the majority. While many business want disciplined people, with them they will not excel as much as they would have had the schools selected for excellence in that particular field rather than discipline across the board. Science is compartmentalized, school is not. See the problem? Ask any psychologist or philologist what Newton's first law of thermodynamics says and see if he or she still *remembers*. I propose we close all schools and use computers and the internet to teach kids what they want to learn, which also happens to be the only thing that they will *learn*. This has the added benefit of ending bullying, school shootings, diminishing cold and flu propagation, ending age segregation amongst kids, improving overall health through increased sleep, lowering teen suicide rates, lowering drug use, increase learning by not suspending it for a few months a year, increase overall happiness of kids, decrease kids and teens acting out, etc.

@AnonYmous-hg7cm

10 жыл бұрын

for what it's worth, I agree with the majority of what you're saying. For instance, I do think that someone who almost had an A shouldn't be excluded from a school that would help him become a better [insert dicipline here]. However, I don't think that giving an A to someone who "deserved" a B will solve that problem. I think the burden should be on the universities/employers to give a chance to more students, because, as you and I pointed out, grades are not a perfect representation of anything (not even short-term memory, discipline (carrying-out orders) and uncreativity). However, grades could, in principle, be less about memory and more about understanding and an ability to solve problems. I do believe that these things matter and that they correlate somewhat to the grades you get. So, if there was some sort of test which really determined how well someone can think about a subject and how much they can come up with solutions to problems, etc., I believe that it would be wrong to give an A to someone who only scored a B's worth. (by the way, in some disciplines---physics for instance---there are such tests. In Canada, at any rate.) If you read carefully my previous comment, you will see that it is neither an argument, nor a slippery slope fallacy. It is an exaggeration of your position, which hopefully allowed my to point out what bothered me with it. I am not saying that your position somehow leads or is the same as giving an A to everybody. But in my view, your position is simply a watered down form of my exaggeration. Explain to me why this (the previous sentence) is wrong, and perhaps I will agree to leave the exaggeration behind. I agree that great psychologists can be shits at math. I don't see why good universities/employers shouldn't see that as well. If they do, then there is really no need to call a B an A, is there? (because it won't matter to them anyway.) If they don't, then the fault is on THEM. I doubt that they would be fooled by your renaming of Bs into As. (not for long, anyway). I don't think that you need to first be good at history and physics in order to become a biologist. I don't think that you NEED to be good with computers either. But surely, you are aware that biology in this day and age benefits from these other disciplines. (I get the feeling that you might be on the side of "I hate math and physics and history," but even if not, the archetype of a biology/medicine/sociology/you-get-the-idea major hating mathematics is common enough for me to address it.) The human genome is a HUGE pile of data, and much progress in disease prevention and treatment depends on mathematical techniques---machine learning, or data mining for instance---being applied to these HUGE sets of data. You don't like that? (the archetype, not you in particular) Fine; you don't have to change what you are doing, as there still is much to do in biology aside from this, but don't deny it, I beg you, and don't look down on your fellow brothers and sisters of a more mathematical persuasion, because they are doing biology as much as you are. (and perhaps they aren't so good in their bio classes) Moving on, you say that the grading system is a way to select for mediocrity, and you seem to be implying that this is by design. My question to you: have you taken a physics exam past the first year level? (I'm not talking about some multiple choice bullshit) If you have, then how can you think it has anything to do with short-term memory? with discipline? (sure, you need to try a lot of problems on your own before your exam to improve your skills, and that takes a certain kind of discipline, I admit), and uncreativity? Are you serious? :) you haven't tried a fourth year quantum mechanics exam, have you? It's not like you can learn a list of facts, like the first law of thermodynamics (I didn't know/remember that Newton stated that one), and pass the exam. The exam will be a list of six problems or so, that you have never seen before. They will even contain new content not covered in class, but briefly explained above the actual question, and you will try one of them (maybe two if you are very fast, or gifted with "some mad skills"). While doing this, you will not be imitating previous solutions (unless you are extremely lucky); you will be coming up with new ones, and they will most likely be wrong, but hopefully, you will achieve something (an approximate answer, a partial solution, a prediction about the actual answer), and based on that, and the equally bad performance of your fellow students, you will get a decent grade which reflects, or at least correlates to your problem solving skills. Maybe they don't do that everywhere, but they do that in Ottawa. As for the claim that science is compartmentalized, it is simply not true. Sure, humans compartmentalize science, but nature doesn't care. Here, I'm quoting Sam Harris directly: "Was the Shroud of Turin a medieval forgery? For centuries, this was a question for historians to answer-until we developed the technique of radiocarbon dating. Now it is a question of chemistry." (from Clarifying the Moral Landscape. A Response to Ryan Born) If you are not convinced, please check out the complete article at www.samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape I understand where a lot of frustrated students are coming from when they want nothing to do with math (it is a sad fact that math doesn't come easy to many, and for most it simply never comes, but I don't deny it.). However, after you've graduated, you shouldn't begrudge other disciplines for giving you (not agun17, but the frustrated student in general) a hard time. We are all on the same boat, and when we can make our mutual lives easier, we should. Back to the point, I don't really care that the psychologist doesn't remember how to write down the first law of thermodynamics, but it worries me that people with power over our lives often don't have any idea of how the world (and the cosmos) actually works beyond their own experience. I think that a minimum of familiarity with other subjects is useful for the individual (because the universe is wonderful in more ways than one) and the society (because making good decisions requires some level of understanding). Perhaps you are aware that you're not the first to propose that schools be replaced by the internet (I recall Isaac Asimov arguing in favor of that). For my part, I don't think you need to abolish anything; just wait 50 more years, and something of this kind will arise on its own. Despite all that, some things are just too hard to learn on your own. In some degree, an experienced professor interacting with you and answering your questions in words you can understand will have its place for a long time to come. Congrats to have read all of this! (I feel slightly ashamed of the length of my comment. Oh well.)

@ElectricityTaster

10 жыл бұрын

Samuel Buteau First of all, you are assuming I am frustrated with a misunderstanding of maths and physics and thus I am biased in my arguments. Whether I am or not, that's an ad hominem fallacy. Also, I'm not saying that the current education system should be replaced by students being self taught using whatever they find on the internet. I said we should use the internet to *teach* kids. My whole argument can be resumed like this: -The partial stage of a work in progress can differ dramatically from the final stage. -Judgements and evaluations in the partial stage offer no valid predictions about the final stage. Thus: we should not judge or evaluate something until it's finished. -We should not judge or evaluate something until it's finished. -A Student is a work in progress to become an educated person who can go on to pursuit his or her post-education goals (career, creative pursuits, hobbies, etc) Thus: we should not judge or evaluate students. -We should not judge or evaluate students. -Exams are judgements or evaluations. -Students are subjected to exams throughout their education. Thus: students should not be examined during their education. An analogy: you wouldn't judge the structural integrity of the half-built Taipei 101 before it had it's tuned mass-damper installed. I also propose that we aren't selecting for excellence, but rather for excellence in conforming to the system. I think there is a difference between the two due to the big imperfections in the education system (Canada, USA or EU). I think it's also noteworthy to point out that Finnish students sit no mandatory exams until they are 17-19 years old. I guess this is the age where Finland assumes the structure of the Taipei 101 is completed and the decorating begins, so to speak.

@AnonYmous-hg7cm

10 жыл бұрын

Misreading the other guy, and then accusing him of fallacies comes damn close to fallacious thinking. At any rate, it's mighty annoying. You've reached your quota in this conversation (which you seem determined to turn into an argument).

If you agree with me, teachers need to teach philosophy in high schools.

Somebody has a crush on teacher.