Notes from Lecture 2:
Logic is the study of rational argumentation.
Rational: that which we have grounds to believe is likely true.
Argument: a set of sentences in which one sentence, called the conclusion, is said to follow from the other sentences, said to be the premises. There can only be one conclusion, but any number of premises.
More than one conclusion, more than one argument; no conclusion, no argument.
There are indicator words that help determine if there is a conclusion, and help determine what any premises are.
Examples (non-exhaustive) of indicator words: because, therefore, so, thus, ergo.
In instances where there are no indicator words, you can try inserting your own indicator words. The lecturer's preferred indicator-words to insert are "therefore", and "because". If the word "therefore" can be inserted without changing the meaning of the sentence, the conclusion is the statement immediately after that. When you can insert the word "because", what precedes it is probably a conclusion, and what follows is a premise.
Sometimes premises are assumed to be obvious, and they are implied rather than stated. An enthymeme is an argument with a suppressed premise.
The steps in determining whether a set of sentences is an argument are:
1. Determine if a group of sentences contains a conclusion.
2. If so, does it include any premises, either stated or implied.
3. If so, it is an argument.
There are two types of arguments: deductive, and inductive
In a deductive argument, the conclusion is no broader than its premises. An example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.
The premise "All men are mortal" is wide in scope. The conclusion, "Socrates is mortal", is narrower in scope than one of the premises, therefore it is a deductive argument.
Inductive arguments have a conclusion that is broader than either of its premises. Such as: The sun has risen every day. The sun will rise every day in the future.
The future days are not included in a premise.
In a deductive argument with true premises and a logically valid conclusion, the certainty of that conclusion is 100%.
[If a deductive argument has a premise that is only probable, then the certainty of that conclusion will be less than 100%.]
For an inductive argument, the certainty is less than 100%.
If an inductive argument can be restated as a deductive argument, then the degree of certainty increases. [However, the degree of certainty will always depend on the degree of certainty of the premises.]
There are two other important properties of an argument: Validity, and well-groundedness
An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises.
An argument is well-grounded if all of its premises are true.
Both properties are necessary for a sound argument.
Formal logic looks at the structure of an argument.
Informal logic considers the well-groundedness of an argument.
[Personally, in regard to the argument about Socrates being mortal, one of the premises, "All men are mortal", cannot be proven. Some men are still living, others may be born in the future, and their mortality cannot be established.
Also, we can't be 100% certain that Socrates died. According to reports from the time, Socrates appeared to have died, so he was probably mortal. Whether the cup that was alleged to have hemlock actually contained a sleeping potion, and his friends spirited his body away to another location and left the shroud-wrapped corpse of another man in his place, isn't something we can know. We can only say, based on the reports, he appears to have died. It is highly improbable that he is still living, but it isn't certain.]
Dr. Drew interviewed Scott Adams recently, and Scott Adams mentioned the absurdity that Republicans went to overthrow the government on Jan 6, but they neglected to bring their guns. On the first or second anniversary of the event, that alleged oversight made the narrative appear absurd to me, so I made a "video" that was supposed to be audio from January 6, captured on a video camera from which the lens cap had not been removed. I'm posting it again just because.
While I was waiting on hold to talk with a human at the IRS, I decided to put some food out for the dogs. I set the full bag of dog food on a chair, and walked away to get the bowls. When I turned around I saw the bag slowly tipping over, spilling much of its contents onto the floor. Fortunately I had help cleaning it up.
The main task for today is to begin revising McGuffey's Fourth Eclectic Reader. It may take a couple of weeks, possibly more. I still have to work at Publix, and next week I start a new job in the memory care unit of a rehab/nursing home facility, and I'll also be working at Publix at least one night.
After that I'll take a look at the double-slit experiment, and see if there is an interpretation that is consistent with my theory of wave physics.
Also, I came across the attached meme, which I had created two or three years (or so) ago. I thought I'd include it because I still like it.
I recently proposed a theory of matter and energy called Wave Physics. In this theory, the only things in the universe are energy and the universal membrane, which is the medium through which all energy is transfered and stored.
Tonight I realized that according to this theory, everyone and everything in the universe are connected to each other at all times. Things that would be impossible according to the standard model of particle physics, are very possible in the universe of wave physics. Psychic transmissions and the power of prayer are physically possible and make sense if the universe works in any way like the theory I proposed.
If you've ever heard the phone ring and felt sure who it was before answering it, and were proven correct, this makes sense in wave physics, but not with particle physics. If you've ever looked intently at someone, and had that person quickly turn and look directly at you (I have), that phenomenon makes sense if all of us are parts of the same vast, ...
I was only scheduled to work three days this week, so I decided to work on a theory I'd been playing around with for fun over the last few years. I'd never been a big fan of the standard model of particle physics, so a few years ago, just for fun, I thought about exploring some alternate ideas, with zero training and zero experiments.
This week I wrapped up a few loose ends, and posted it to a community I created called Wave Physics. Originally I had called it Alternative Physics, but I changed my mind, so the link still has alternativephysics in it, but the community name is Wave Physics. I'd love for people to pay $5.00 a month to tell me how wrong I am.
https://alternativephysics.locals.com/
I also posted it on my personal website:
