Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you
by Squarespace. Squarespace: Share your passion with the world. How do you know that aspirin will take care
of your headache? Why do you really want to see the new Marvel movie,
even though you haven’t heard anything about it, good or bad? Your ability to do things like predict how
a medication will affect you, or what movie you might like, or even things like what the
perfect gift might be for your best friend, or what’s the fastest way to get to campus
–- all of this stuff, you know through induction. Deductive arguments are great because they
give us certain answers. But unfortunately, much of the world cannot
be summed up in a neat deductive proof. Deduction requires a fair amount of general
information to give you a specific conclusion that is, frankly, probably kind of obvious. So, philosophy -- and basically, you know, life as well --
require that you have other ways of reasoning. In addition to knowing how one fact leads
to another, you also need to take what you’ve experienced before, and use that to predict
what might happen in the future. And you need to be able to rule out what can’t
be true, so you can focus on what can. Through these kinds of reasoning, you’re
not only able to figure out stuff like how to fix your headache, and why your roommate
might be acting weird. You can also come up with better, more skillful arguments — and
counterarguments — which are some of the most important maneuvers in the philosophical
game. And maybe the best part is, you already know
how to use these techniques. In fact, I bet you’ve used them this very
day. You know this! [Theme Music] If you possess any ability to really predict the
future, it lies in your ability to reason inductively. Inductive reasoning relies on the predictability
of nature to reveal that the future is likely to resemble the past, often in important ways. For example, there’s tons of research to
support the knowledge that aspirin -- acetylsalicylic acid -- is an effective treatment for pain,
like headaches. And you probably have personal experience
with the effects of aspirin, too. So, you believe that this aspirin tablet will
cure the headache you have right now, because countless aspirin tablets have cured countless
headaches in the past. Likewise, you want to see the new Marvel movie,
because you liked most of the other ones, so you believe that they’ll continue to
deliver for you, entertainment-wise. But it’s important to remember that, unlike
deduction, where true premises entail true conclusions, inductive premises only mean
that the conclusion is likely to be true. Inductive arguments don’t provide you with
certainty. Instead, they work in terms of probabilities. And they’re useful for more than predicting
what’s going to happen. For example: Most men in ancient Athens had beards.
Socrates was a man who lived in ancient Athens. Therefore, Socrates probably had a beard This is an inductive argument, because it
starts with what we already know – about the grooming habits of ancient Athenian men,
and about the time and place in which Socrates lived – and makes an educated guess based
on that information. There’s no guarantee that the conclusion is correct,
but what’s known would seem to support it. Reasoning like this is incredibly useful, which is
why it’s so common. But there’s also a problem. The future doesn’t always resemble the past.
And every pattern has its outliers. So induction always has the potential to produce
false results. Aspirin might not work on a really bad headache. The new Marvel movie
might be awful. And, yeah, maybe a specific guy in Athens had a beard but it’s possible
he didn’t! While the world tends to work according to
predictable rules, sometimes those rules are violated. And you know what you need when that happens?
A little Flash Philosophy. Off to the Thought Bubble. Contemporary American philosopher Nelson Goodman
confronts the problems of induction, using a thought exercise about a hypothetical substance
called grue. According to Goodman’s scenario, grue is
anything that’s the color green before a certain time, a time that we will call t. And another property of grue is that, while
it’s green before time t, it’s blue after it. Now, let’s assume that we’re living in
a time before t. T could happen a hundred years from now or tomorrow, but we know that
all of the emeralds we’ve ever seen are green So, inductive reasoning lets us conclude that
all emeralds are green, and will remain green after time t -- since emeralds haven’t been
known to change color. BUT! All emeralds are grue! Because it's not yet time t,
and they're green, which is part of the definition of grue. So we have no choice but to conclude that
the emeralds will be blue after time t arrives. Now we’ve got a problem. Because inductive
reasoning has led us to conclude that emeralds will be blue after time t, but inductive reasoning
also tells us that they’ll remain green. Goodman’s riddle reminds us that inductive
evidence can be flawed, or contradictory. It can make you think that you can predict
the future, when of course you can’t. So, there are times when you need to get at
the truth in other ways. Like by eliminating what’s obviously not true, and considering
what’s most likely. And for this, we turn our attention to one
of the most important philosophical figures of 19th century England: Sherlock Holmes. In chapter six of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “The
Sign of the Four,” Mr. Holmes says, and I quote: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” This is probably the best, most succinct description
ever given of the kind of reasoning known as abduction. Which I know, it sounds like we’re talking
about a kidnapping or something, but abduction is a thought process sometimes described as
“inference to the best explanation.“ Abduction doesn’t reason straight from a premise to
a conclusion, as we’ve seen in deduction and induction. Instead, it reasons by ruling out possible
explanations until you’re left with the most plausible one, given the evidence. Consider
this: Anna told you she failed her physics midterm. Anna hasn’t been in physics class since
your teacher graded the exams. Anna has been in sociology class, which meets
right after physics. Anna dropped physics. Now, with only these premises, we can’t
deductively or inductively prove our conclusion – that she dropped physics. But, it’s a justifiable conclusion, because,
given what we know, dropping the class is the most plausible explanation of events. We know she’s not sick – because she’s
still going to sociology – and we know she had good reason to withdraw from the class,
because she was unlikely to pass. Concluding that she dropped the course makes
the most tidy use of our information, without leaving any loose ends. So let’s look at
another one: You and your roommate ate sushi last night. You both wake up with violent stomachaches. You and your roommate ate some bad sushi. The mere fact that you’re both sick doesn’t
prove that the sushi caused the sickness. But, given that you both ate the same thing
and you both have the same symptoms – absent other information, like that a stomach virus
is going around your dorm – the best explanation is that the sushi caused your intestinal anguish. Now, like induction, abduction doesn’t give
us certainty. But it is a really useful way to get through
puzzling situations when you don’t have clear evidence from the past to help you out. Doctors use abduction a lot when they’re
diagnosing illnesses, and detectives of course use it when piecing together evidence. You probably use it pretty often too – just
beware, because abduction must be used carefully! It uses only information you have at hand
-- that’s why doctors and detectives work so hard to dig up more data, and re-create events from
the past, so they can help draw better conclusions. All right, now that we’ve looked at some
argument types, let’s find out how philosophers use arguments to interact with each other. Because, philosophers don’t argue like other
people do. It’s not like the conversation you have
around the dinner table about whether the Patriots are better than the Seahawks, or
why plain M&Ms are superior to peanut, which is clearly a preposterous position to take. Philosophers hold each other to different,
higher standards. They don’t teach each other get away with
saying, “I reject your argument because I don’t like its conclusion.” Or, “That’s
preposterous, peanut M&Ms are so good.” Instead, if you disagree with a conclusion,
you need to give reasons, just like the first person did when they made their case. Both people involved in this kind of exchange
are known as interlocutors, because we have to name everything. The first one advances
an argument, and the second one can either accept it, or offer a counterargument, which
is just what it sounds like – an argument offered in opposition to another argument. Think back to Socrates and the beard. You think Socrates had a beard, and your reasoning
is that most men in his time and place had them. I, however, think you’re wrong. So I give
you a counterargument. Gorgias, a contemporary of Socrates, said
Socrates couldn’t grow a beard and that he would sneak into barbershops and steal
discarded clippings to fashion fake beards for himself. Therefore, Socrates didn’t
have a (real) beard. And I just want to point out that this is
an actual philosophy conspiracy theory. Gorgias was a real guy, who differed with
Socrates on many things, and the dispute was said to have gotten personal. According to accounts of the time, Gorgias
actually spread the rumor that Socrates wore, like, a beard-wig, in an effort to shame and
discredit his rival. I mean, how could you be a good thinker if you weren’t a good
beard-grower. Gorgias’ gossip didn’t go over well with
everyone, and in this instance, let’s say you are skeptical about it too. So you counter my counterargument with a counter-counterargument. Gorgias was known for being a gossip, and
for hating Socrates, and trying to make him look bad. His fake beard tale seems wildly
unlikely. Therefore, we can’t take Gorgias’ statement seriously, so we should fall back
on the best information we have, which is that most of the men in his time and place
had beards. And as you can see, arguments of different
styles can be used in the same exchange. Like, the original argument, about Socrates
probably having a beard, was inductive. But this last counterargument is abductive.
And that’s fine. Arguments are meant to be useful, so we don’t have
to use the same kind of reasoning when we argue. This way of exchanging ideas through dialogue
was popularized by Socrates, and so has become known as the Socratic method. Socrates thought dialogue was the best way
to learn, and to get at truth. And it’s important to note that, while philosophers
have a reputation for being an argumentative lot, they don’t think of the Socratic method as
something that results in a winner and a loser. Rather, it’s an exercise that brings both
interlocutors closer to the truth. The goal of the philosopher is not to win,
but to find truth, so you shouldn’t be disappointed if someone presents a counterargument that
you can’t find a response to. When that happens, a good philosopher will
be grateful to their interlocutor for helping them reject false beliefs and build stronger
ones. Today you learned about two more types of
philosophical reasoning, induction and abduction. You’ve seen their strengths, and their weaknesses.
And you’ve also learned about counterarguments, and the Socratic method. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.
Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites
look professionally designed regardless of skill level, no coding required. Try Squarespace at
squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer. Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association
with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out amazing shows like
BrainCraft, It’s OK To Be Smart, and PBS Idea Channel. This episode was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl
C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of these amazing people and our Graphics Team
is Thought Cafe.
Minor point, but in the video they claim that this argument is inductive: '(P1) Most men in ancient Athens had beards; (P2) Socrates was a man who lived in ancient Athens; (C) Therefore, Socrates probably had a beard.' But this argument is deductive - under any reasonable definition of 'probably', (P1) and (P2) entail (C). Yes, in inductive arguments the conclusion is probable rather than certain (ignoring the Problem of Induction), but directly featuring probability in the conclusion changes the meaning of the argument. If they had wanted an inductive argument, (C) would have to be 'Socrates had a beard'. As I say, it's a minor point, but there's just no need for carelessness like this in an educational video.
Perhaps unlike some others here, I like it! I don't think some users here realise that many people lack a natural ability to keep up with the complexities and subtleties of philosophy, and I am definitely in that boat. This series is already really useful to me since picking up a traditional philosophy book is incredibly difficult to understand without these foundations.
I'll make sure to look at the criticisms of this community after each episode.
Edit: Clarity
Edit 2: For me, philosophy is therapeutic, it's about establishing a way of thinking which is open-minded and allows you to live life peacefully and happily. I have nothing against the passion others have for the great Socrates and Hume, which has transformed how we live immensely--perhaps unimaginably--but philosophy means so much more to me than getting caught up in the details of how to argue or what is knowing. So far, it's been the deeply abstract ideas of Nietzsche and Camus which has helped me to find sanity within a chaotic society of political and religious moral conflicts.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies my stance, and a stance which I presume many others share. I initially want a conceptual overview of a school of thought so I can quickly learn the important ideas and concepts it has to offer, only then am I happy to start zooming in with my microscope to study the details.
Maybe I'm getting old, but the fast-cuts in this video, and perhaps other CC-videos, give me a headache. I'm not able to process a sentence before the next sentence has already begun. Fast-cutting can be a nice way to be economical with the content of the video, but having literally every sentence spliced together like this borders on the comical for me.
First of all, I understand that these are meant to be preliminary and available to non-specialists. However, I'm slightly concerned that these CC Philosophy videos are "loading the dice" in favor of doing philosophy in a certain way that limits the possible senses in which philosophy can actually be practiced.
I think that these videos could be improved if there were mentions of some of the caveats/presuppositions surrounding what it is that they are attempting to convey. For example, the way that Inductive Reasoning was framed and explained suggests that we knowingly move-about in the world making inductive premises and conclusions. I know that that was not explicitly said; however, by framing our acts and way-of-being/coping in such terms without caveats (in this case, that we don't do this consciously for the most part) it frames a philosophical subject (person) in terms of their knowing capacity to "use" language and reason.
Another excellent caveat that could have been mentioned is the Problem of Induction and the problems surrounding its rational, predicative, deployment and how that deployment (or lack thereof) actually does not necessarily pertain to probability.
My last cripe will be that philosophy is framed, in this video and their 2nd, in terms of knowing how to argue as opposed to knowing how to Think - or, perhaps to put differently, my cripe is that there is a conflation between the two. In framing philosophy as knowing how to argue the video subliminally continues to reinforce the hypothesis that philosophy is a purely rational, descriptive, enterprise whose potential other concerns/topics and ways-of-practice comes second to its argumentative concerns.
The video, in this instance, indeed added a caveat in the aforementioned regard - that the socratic dialogue is employed for the sake of truth and not merely for the sake of argument or being-right or not being duped. This caveat, as far as the video goes, is a good one to add (preferably, it would not be a caveat). However, the frame, within-which the rest of the content is presented when combined with my aforementioned cripes, I think, suggests that my concern is warranted because, chronologically anyway, Truth was made second as a caveat to argumentation and, as I began, other ways of doing/participating in philosophy are sidelined for an all-too-common utility-based approach that merely asks, "what can philosophy do for me?" as opposed to, perhaps equally pertinent questions of, "what can philosophy do TO me?"
These videos frame philosophy as something that can be bought and learned; and who were the first to "buy and sell" philosophical virtue and thereby turn it into something that can merely "do something for you?". Should be obvious that the answer is: The Sophists.
Is there any topic that is able to explain things to newcomers without losing comprehensiveness?
When you teach square roots for the first time in math you don't get stuck up on the idea of imaginary roots and how to deal with all this complex stuff. You just say that you can't solve roots for imaginary numbers right now, then next year you expand and complexify things since they understand the concept.
From my experience, all of education has been learning some topic, then learning that the topic was oversimplified and slightly inaccurate then expanding the knowledge base. People get over critical sometimes, and that is important to a point, but sometimes you have to take into account the intended audience.
Also I agree that the videos can seem fast, but there are in digital format, the big advantage is the ability to allow them down, repeat sections of video, pause and think, stop and look up extra info you didn't understand. That's how I use at least if I'm learning. Otherwise you can just watch through once and treat it more like entertainment
I was disappointed when then they misrepresented the Grue argument. The Grue argument has nothing to do with things changing colors; it's about utilizing cumbersome terminology. They would have known that had they read Goodman's argument (in any of its many iterations) a little more closely; it's more than obvious that their interpetation of the argument is incorrect when you include the 'bleen' argument that they excluded. Also, no Hume? You had ten minutes. He should have been at least one or two of those. I think introducing him would have been more helpful than getting Goodman wrong.
That was quite good, considering it aims to explain basic stuff in little time to people new to philosophy. I remain sceptical, until they come to philosophical subjects. Because, so far, I somewhat dislike their handling of employing examples: last time the barber paradox, this time Goodman's grue. I doubt that it helps the understanding when it's as simplified. The explanation of Russell from last video was gibberish and far too short, this time it's just a bit out of context (as far as I can tell, I'm not familiar with Goodman at all though), which doesn't really matter for what is explained but pictures Goodman wrongly. A few details were somewhat vague, for example when talking about probability where they blurred the line of what is induction and what is deduction there.
I am so thankful that Crash Course is now doing philosophy videos! This video is great!
How exactly is
"1. Most men who live in Athens have beards.
2.Sokrates is a man who lives in Athens.
Conclusion: Sokrates probably has a beard."
an induction rather than deduction? Given that "most men" means "more than half of men" and "probably" means "with probability higher than 1/2" it seems like a deductive conclusion. Or do we need to explicitly add a third assumption such as
"3. No other facts that influence the probability of Sokrates having a beard are known to the subject that draws the following conclusion."