Agree!

True.

Stephen Robertson True now more than ever.

We can't do that! Then our children would grow up actually able to not simply believe what they are told to believe. Our entire society couldn't function if filled with people who don't just blindly believe whatever authority tells them.

@@ambershah5741 Stephen means, right from the class 1. It would be devastating for the students if critical thinking is taught in maths only for the students who don't have interest in the subject. In northern Europe critical thinking is taught by taking the students out in the nature and to look around them.

Thanks for sharing!

i mean like you can do it since he used a website to make it

Because people are more interested in watching dog videos, make up tutorials and prank videos than learning something useful.

It has quarter of a million views now.

As a republican, I gotta say I really really respect you. I wish the world was filled with people like you!

I'm not American, but I feel like true logical and critical thinkers very quickly realize, that a large entity like a political party is far more challenging to judge than a single individual. While I can relate to democrats and their push for anti-racism freedom of religion and anti-discrimination, democrats are also keen on pushing values and ideologies that are not required for normal human function, such as extreme feminism, veganism/animal protection and LGBTQ+ ideas that most people are not comfortable with and especially wouldn't like their children to learn. Obviously, republicans have their own problems as well. But what do you think about Biden and comparing that to trump(tbh I think both are shit lol)

I believe that you would be attacking the validity of the argument. Fallacies stand as illusory inferential links between premises. Once those fallacies are illuminated, it becomes clear that the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

It depends on which fallacy is being committed. The two fallacies you bring up are good examples to show the distinction. Ad hominem employs an irrelevant premise so the argument would be invalid--the conclusion is not guaranteed if the premises are true. Begging the question employs a premise that if true guarantees that the conclusion is true, so it is technically a valid argument. But the premise is unacceptable because it is assuming the conclusion and thus the argument would not be sound.

All detactives use Abductive reason which is pinnacle of human knowledge. Deductive reasoning won't get you actually anywhere other within basic assumptions

If a premise is false then the argument is unsound. That does not _necessarily_ mean the conclusion is false, but it does mean that the argument does not support it. Men named David are the sexiest men in the world. My name is David. Therefore I am one of the sexiest men in the world. (Unsound, but valid, and undeniably true. 😁)

Did u ever figure out the answer lol

@@davidh.4944 do u know why it’s hard to have good logic plausibility and interest all within one argument

That's why the conclusion does not draw from the premises and the argument is therefore invalid.

Of course. Opera music is written for singers not musicians. Outside of overtures and beloved arias, opera music is rather ordinary and, often, repetitive.

@@matheusmelo6022 Not quite right, I believe. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises (and is invalid) because it doesn't take into account the possibility that pop singers can love opera, too. If the first premise were narrowed to "ONLY classical musicians appreciate opera", or changed to "pop singers don't appreciate opera", then it would be valid. The argument is _unsound_ because classical musicians can indeed hate opera (the first premise, as given, is false), in addition to it being invalid.

WiPhi = Wireless Philosophy