Man, I did't know that Math Damon was so smart

@zenbozic6184

5 жыл бұрын

meth damon

@bagelstruth9313

5 жыл бұрын

Didn't you see Good Will Hunting

@yolandaarendse5

4 жыл бұрын

@@bagelstruth9313 The Good Shepherd was by far his best and most intense role. ;D

@10act37

4 жыл бұрын

Meth Demon

@Overthought7

4 жыл бұрын

lol, Math Damon

Thank you sir, you are the one who acually knows how to teach. it is very kind of you. I remain grateful to you. very helpful and understandable. love from pakistan

@tomrichey

7 жыл бұрын

+Haider Abbas Glad I can help!

Preparing for exams and watching your videos . Sir, you are truly a gem

Flashback to those times at three am when you didn't understand a word of your Philosophy homework that was worth 50% of your overall grade.

@marshmellowlover146

4 жыл бұрын

Paris 54 flashback? its very real right now 😭

@sa-ti7nd

3 жыл бұрын

bro this is me right now lmfaoooo

@twannabranker9142

3 жыл бұрын

So true.....omg

Wow, philosophers speak with a Southern Accent, Aristotle is a philosopher so Aristotle speaks with a Southern Accent, and since I speak with a Southern Accent, I'm as smart as Aristotle...Cool!

@tomrichey

8 жыл бұрын

LOL

@caribaez5711

7 жыл бұрын

lol

@RABBlTFTW88

6 жыл бұрын

Grumbel Bumbel But he did not use inductive reasoning there. He used deductive reasoning but he just used it incorrectly. If he said something like "all southern speakers are as smart as each other, so I am as smart as Aristotle" he would have used deductive reasoning correctly but his conclusion is still wrong since his premises were wrong (i.e philosophers speaking with a southern accent is wrong and that all southern speakers are as smart as each other also wrong), I don't mean to go too deep into this but I'm just making sure I understand it.

@faktumstream1beatz335

6 жыл бұрын

Rob Roy Rigler circular reasoning? Try again Airistotoh.

@Snafuski

6 жыл бұрын

The vagaries of the syllogism...

Awesome video! I've watched dozens of youtube videos on inductive vs deductive reasoning and I started to get the sense that deductive thinkers rely on "facts" having "absolute" or "black/white" qualities to them. I tend to use inductive forms of reasoning most of the time, because there's always a chance that a past "fact" or occurrence isn't going to happen again tomorrow. Thus, it isn't really a "fact". You nailed it on the head to suggest that inductive thinkers rely more heavily on PROBABILITY as defining their interpretations of what "facts" are and how they could potentially behave. For example, in quantum tunneling, (a particle could suddenly manifest itself across the universe over billions of lights years) anything could disappear or manifest itself from one area to the other side of the universe. Quantum tunneling is a real phenomenon - it's how stars fuse most of their various atoms together to create heavier elements...stars aren't hot enough at their cores to fuse atoms. So in your example, there's a possibility that the sun may not rise tomorrow - there's a very tiny possibility that all the particles which make it up, quantum tunnel to another/other parts of the universe. Inductive thinkers are going to have problems with formal logic. Inductive thinkers will see formal logic as too rigid and narrow-minded. I had major problems with formal logic when I went to law school...I thought too abstractly and in terms of probability too much - nothing seemed to be a definite fact to me.

@jorriffhdhtrsegg

Жыл бұрын

I don't think these are inherently related to each method. We can take either form of reasoning as absolute or not, its just that its less reasonable to take induction as truth! And i think that's part of it. Deduction can make claims of prediction but only within certain axiomatic limits and to a degree of probability too! But regarding Positivism, it actually uses induction to determine truths, at least according to Popper, who stated deduction was superior but couldn't be used to verify truths. Observation>inductive formulation of premise>deductive preditction derived from premise>experimental observation>inductive 'result' and truh by verification is what Positivism actually does.

And you just saved me from failing a quiz! Thanks from homeschoolers everywhere!

“You said bottom” ... scary stuff

@karthikshaji9067

3 жыл бұрын

Well.... Kids are..

@angelagibbs9417

3 жыл бұрын

Smells like hes into pizza parties....

i know this comment is late, but great job! I wish all teachers could be so informative and explain things in analogies like you do!

Smartest man with a southern accent i have ever heard.

"Deductive reasoning has been around a lot longer." Deductive and inductive reasoning have always been around; those specific words may not have been used to describe them, but they have always existed.

@Sniegel

4 жыл бұрын

Good critique. Been written down and acknowledged a lot longer is a better conclusion. At least according to recorded history (available data points). Your premise is more sound since it's unlikely that discovery comes quickly after phenomena

@garyking6888

4 жыл бұрын

Man cannot create laws of reasoning, we can only discover them, similar to the laws of nature ie gravity. Me thinks this comment is more like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. It really doesn't matter if this reasoning was used before or not, or who first started using them, but rather how each applies to science which is the subject of this video as well as defining each method. The "scientific" was first defined by Bacon and applied to science. How do we know? We have no evidence otherwise. Until you find someone specific who defined inductive thinking and used it for science, not debating the number of angels on the head of pin. :-)

@abelphilosophy4835

4 жыл бұрын

Justin Heubrock I believe he meant , not in terms of existence as such , but as a school of thought . Perhaps that’s what he meant

@christiantaylor1495

4 жыл бұрын

Aristotele also used inductive. This video is about scientific inductive reasoning, which is different from inductive reasoning.

@jeremyponcy7311

4 жыл бұрын

@@garyking6888 Men do create the laws of reason or more accurately consciousness raised to a particular baseline capacity creates the laws of reason. The world is not reasonable the world is orderly. The distinction is subtle but significant. Reason is the utilization of selective observation formulated into laws to achieve particular ends. There is no such thing as reason without ends and the moment you change the ends the reason can become obsolete, that is, what was once true is no longer true. Newton's physics was true enough for its intended end but inadequate to Einstein's ends. Einstein's physics was true enough for its intended ends but inadequate to quantum mechanics. Science is never completely true it is only an adequate schematization for the ends it seeks to achieve. There is no reason to believe that there isn't indefinite potential inputs either. It seems as though information can be dissected indefinitely meaning no law of reason or at least no accessible law short of the ones consciously creates to achieve an intended end. Fundamentally, reason is a tool not an end. Tools are man made, consciousness made.

man thank you so much. good quick video, give good examples, well spoken. and most of all go to the point with out fluff for the first half.

Thank you so much Tom. I watched a few other videos from other sources on Induction and it did not clarify it so much as your video. You basically nailed it for me. Thank you for the video. I have philosophy exams in a week and your video was spot on and helped me a lot.

Wow, thanks. I’m studying college biology and this is the first time this concept was brought up and I was confused on the difference. Your examples really helped. Thanks! Also, I think there for I am is my favorite quote lol.

Absolutely fascinating. Thank you for an excellent explanation.

Thank you, Tom, for a most interesting explanation and demonstration of critical thinking skills.

I could not understand clearly the two concepts prior to watching your video lecture. But now, it's a piece of cake! I am thankful to you Sir for the creative video.

I've read a lot of articles about deductive and inductive method and haven't understood any. This video is the first thing that made me understand these two methods. Thank you for posting this vid. Though I expected further explanation about inductive reasoning, well it was great.

Thanks for coming through on this track! you are awesome

Clear and great explanation! Thanks!!

Greetings from Belgium! I'm a student in literature and spend my life reading books. I'm saying that in order to ensure you (if you would even need that ^^) that your videos have a good level of accuracy and I rarely find errors in your works on European history, which becomes more and more uncommon on other American channels... Anyway, I'm glad that I can sum up my readings by watching your nice videos with your lovely Southerner accent and, moreover, by doing this, improve my English! :D

Brilliantly Done!!! Splendid!!!

@tomrichey

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Awesome explanation! I'm reading 'The Story of Philosophy' by 'Will Durrant' and I admit I was a bit lost on Francis Bacon, you've really simplified it for me, thankyou!

2:28 THAT SCARED THE CRAP OUTTA ME!

If I’d have had a teacher like this I’d have been a history professor. Awesome channel 🤘🏽

Top stuff Mr Richey, your channel is one of my favourites

This video helped my understanding so much. Thank you Tom!

Great summation...making humanity smarter one video at a time.

I hope I'm not repeating myself, but I have watched this more than once before and find it awesome!! My channel is so Audio-Video, music, etc, but I have always loved these topics! Cheers!

Southern Matt Damon, you are excellent m8, thks for the pre-exam recap!

very precise and well-done. Thanks.

Thanks for your most clear description

First time explained that actually made sense!!!

You're such a great teacher! I like your style!

This was smoother than I expected and nicely summed the topic. You also use English in the way i can easily understand what your talkin about. Good job.

Great video Sir! Understandable, clearly spoken, great presentation for some of us students!

Wait a minute - I actually danced after watching this. Yay - assignment, I'm ready for you.

You are an amazing Professor! Now, I can apply Borel Cantelli Lemma in these two methods!

Thanks professor. We could say then , that deductive reasoning is what Aristotle called a : syllogism . You rock

Loved the last line: Question is not who is better? it is just that it's different.

Thank for your simple but accurate explanation

Excellent video, Tom. Thanks so much. Sharing with friends too.

Excellent presentation and I was so happy to hear your conclusion 8:01 agrees with my thinking, that they are both the tools of science, and should be used alternately or as required for the purpose. I would add to your statement "They are both tools of science" that they are complementary tools of science, they require each other, just as addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, derivative and integral, are all required to operate in both directions.

First of all, what an accent, really loved that. Thanks so much for this video, you truly helped me with my math course project!

So amazing you'd put it so simple for me. Much appreciated.

@tomrichey

4 жыл бұрын

Glad I can help!

very well explained! thank you so much!

Love your explanation and Southern accent Makes it so simple and easy to understand

Fantastic video! I truly enjoyed it.

@tomrichey

8 жыл бұрын

+briangren Thank you very much!

Great explanation! Thanks for the vid!

I loved your video and I'm excited to share it with fellow students. Chopped full of fun info in a grate format. Thank you. I have subscribed. Tina

The best explanation on youtube so far Danke schön

very good explanation, thanks!

This was beautifully taught. Thanks so much

Very fruitful video. Grateful to u, sir!

Great video! Thank you for posting. I noticed a mistake in the description. As you state in the video, Descartes' famous phrase is a deduction. You referred to induction twice in that sentence when I think you meant to refer to deduction.

Oh my god thank you so much. I’ve been struggling for days on this and I finally get it!! 10 hours to write my essay🙃

Thank you so much for the tutorial.

Hey Tom, Thank you for beautiful explanation. It was really helpful to me.

Thanks, very brief and to the point..

very precise,thank you so much

Really Good Lesson great thank you for this video and for the knowledge 👍

Its 3.29 am here.. and I'm watching it to do my home assignment. Thank you

that was a excellent way of explaining it.

Perfect perfect perfect . Thank you

Thank you this made sense to me!

That was very helpful, thank you!

Thank you Sir. Good explanation.

Nice intro... The intro alone got you the sub. +1... And, some great content here... Well done, Sir...

Excellent video!!!!

Thanks for the video. Very helpful

Loved this video thank you!

Thank you! I keep hearing: "Deductive reasoning can't be wrong". Thank you for showing that it can and has to be build on (perhaps well-founded) assumptions.

This was awesome!

Excellent explanation. Thanks Keep. more coming. Subscribed

You know a lot about this topic, You are a great speaker, therefore your video is great! ;)

@8xrry

4 жыл бұрын

Lmao. Nicely done

Thank you so much for this video. It really helped me in my critical thinking class.

Brilliant video.

Was a very good reference sir.... and you have used a very simple and basic method

Very well explained. Thanks Sir

Thank you! Great explanation 😊

This is really cool. I like how you’ve explained my train of thought.... both of them! Lol

I applaud your presentation. It hit the mark for me. Thank you(from a magical thinker)

Straight to the point 👍👍

Thanks for the Video. Some points that may need more precision: 1. Aristotle was 'fairly new' at Bacons time as his philosophy was only reactivated in the high middle ages and found its expression in scholasticism. With the formation of the modern university that awarded degrees Aristotle became popular. 2. It was Aristotle's method of observation that made more interesting than doctrines in scholasticism. 3. Especially the universities where places where beliefs were constantly challenged. Maybe it is therefore better to contrast the church doctrines and Bacon but not to use particularly Aristotle as the great enemy. Scholasticism's Aristotelanism itself was very revolutionary and questioned the doctrines of the Augustinian schools. 4. Aristotle's also possessed induction, I think the difference lies more in their particular method, which in case of Bacon is more advanced scientifically as it involves more a method of experimentation. However, I saw many other videos that contrast deduction and induction. There is something false about this. All forms of logical reasoning were known to the Greeks. Deduction and Induction are just different types of syllogism, which involves the arrangement of universals to particulars and individuals. All arrangements were already known and also Kant admits that logic has done no step forward since Aristotle. I hope the points foster some further thoughts, thanks for the video.

super helpful for my sociology paper! thanks a bunch

Helped a ton. Thanks buddy.

@tomrichey

4 жыл бұрын

You’re quite welcome!

Writing a comment to clarify this to myself. It seems like both systems concern models of something. A model consist of: * Some mapping of the real world into a model * Some system that makes predictions based on this model Deduction describes the reasoning within the model Induction describes the creations of new rules. The value of deduction is that it gives is predictions to test. Further we may use deduction to show how our model might be wrong. This means deduction is serving induction. Deduce something wrong, examine premises, change the minimal number of rules so nothing breaks. Of course there is a question of what induction even is. Well we might define more properties and things. Or we might posit a relationship between the things. In the triangle circle relationship what are we doing. Well we have a class C. We have instances of C. We wish to predict what other instances of C look like. How should we do this. Well we might posit simplicity in terms of the minimal amount of ink to describe C. This would likely be the circle (though it does complicate the model by having curves). Interestingly the circle is "simpler" only if we don't include the observations themselves in the language. I.e. We might introduce two languages a model language, an observation language and then mappings between them. The horrible complexity here is of course in the mapping itself. This ends up requiring some sort of sense data to test. I guess a complication is where the deduction exists if we are materialist. In practice it occurs on some material surface. Like a piece of paper or your brain. We can then describe the minimality constraints physically. Though one imagines the form of physical model then makes a difference in what minimality looks like. I am not sure how one justifies the separation of the model language from the observation language. Perhaps one needs to introduce a concept of forgetting. I.e. You remember your model language you forget your observations, remember the minimal amount. Of course none of this helps with remembering the names. Induction takes things in. Deduction deduces things. It draws things of (ductile).

excellent video

Its just now I understood. Thanks

I'm a fan. You're very good.

BOOM! There it is! Thanks!!

really great! Thank you!

Great!!! Reality is not only ideal but empirical too.

Thank you so much, that was very useful.

You ROCK, man !!!!!

Very well explained

Super helpful for my AP Seminar class! Thanks for the video!

@tomrichey

4 жыл бұрын

Glad to be able to help AP classrooms in such an interdisciplinary fashion!

you are the best and you give the best explanation.++++++++++++++++++++++

Great job!

great video tom ..