Create your own awesome maps

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account?
Log In

Think Again - Video Map by Mind Map: Think Again - Video Map
5.0 stars - 1 reviews range from 0 to 5

Think Again - Video Map

Lecture 1-5

Purposes of argument 0:10



arguments are made out of language 0:50

animal language 1:16, arguing goat 1:39, humans- the animal that argues 2:08

"Materials" of argument - language 0:40

important 2:56, Helen Keller 3:06

conventional 4:20, correct side of road 4:40, football / soccer 5:28, money / socks arbitrary name 6:01

representational limits 6:32, Lincoln 5 legged horse 6:47, money / socks, poor / rich 7:32

social limits 8:06, mega lemons 8:40, monty python anagrams 9:28

Rules of the language

semantics - meaning 10:11, gimme pepperoni 10:26

physical production 10:57, volume, pronunciation 11:07

structural combination 11:15, syntax, spelling, grammar 11:21

etiquette 11:30

finger / singer 12:10, subconscious rule

if the word in the first blank has an effect in the world then it is a speech act

see Mars example 7:20

if - then, if might seem like argument, but by itself it is NOT 10:05

you could prove anything with circular reasoning and you could also prove the opposite 6:58

the goal is to increase understanding 2:00

how to avoid fallacies 5:54

vagueness 6:00

ambiguity 6:01

irrelevance 6:02

begging the question 6:10

definition of an argument 6:26

a series of sentences, statement, and propositions

some are premises one is the conclusion

premises give reasons for the conclusion

we use language to bring about a change in the world 00:20


getting premsion

legal rights


"I don't like fish"

just a personal preference, no explanation required

not as good as "good"

some philosophers say the word "good" is just a way of expressing emotions or maybe telling us what to do 0:29

thats not the whole story, good as Preference vs good as Evaluation 0:49

Duke 0:55, "YAY Duke!", just a personal expression of emotion-no explanation required, "Duke has a good team", needs an explanation to back it up

healthcare 1:29, "YAY healthcare", no explanation required, "my healthcare plan is good for the country", needs an explanation to back it up

fish 1:35, "it is immoral/wrong to eat fish", needs an explanation to back it up

the general difference 2:28, expressing personal preference, requires no explanation, it just is, making an evaluation

explanation = joining generalization (justification), prediction BUT vice versa does not always work is this part correct? I got a little lost here.

??? 5:39

Bodes law example 8:29

Aids example 9:47

what arguments are not 2:26

monty python 0:40

they are not fights 1:00

they are not abuse 1:55

not a complaint 2:25

contradiction 3:00

life on Mars example 0:42

tricky cases 9:50

contextually evaluative 9:56

general meaning of word is not positive or negative

they only suggest an evaluation in certain context 10:06, for example liberal is a neutral word, but to a conservative -liberal is bad, but to a liberal- liberal is good

not evaluative in the strict sense 10:58

only evaluative in context 11:05

we will call language evaluative only when it is openly and literally evaluative 11:20

if the speaker is not saying this is good/bad right/wrong etc. they're not really using language we will call evaluative. 11:42

combining positive and negative evaluation words 11:57

good, positive

pretty, positive

pretty good

darn, negative

pretty darn good, means very good

must think of meaning rather than follow a simple formula, to determine positive or negative

too 12:57

if spicy, is good

too spicy, is bad

"too" takes a neutral or positive word and makes it bad so "too" is a negative evaluation word

saying something is good/bad, right/wrong,moral/immoral

requires explaining reasons for backup

Decisions are based on reasons (example court, evangelist) 2:40

if you don't know the premise you can't know the conclusion since the premise is the conclusion

Take the passage and mark Reason, Conclusion, Assuring, Guarding, Discounting, Evaluative Term and positive and negative evaluative terms 00:45

Lecture 3-2

Lecture 3-1

Lecture 3-3

Lecture 3-4


absurdity shown by shortest circle 6:00

there is life on Mars because there is life on Mars

once again this is a big problem

how to analyze arguments 3:35

find arguments 3:50

distinguish arguments from passages 4:10

i think these limbs to the left should be branching off of course map in lecture 1-1 but somehow they keep appearing up here

order arguments 4:33

find missing parts 4:40

Week 1

Lecture 1-1

Having reasons for arguments

Course map, how to evaluate deductive arguments 4:50, purpose of argument 4:58, categorical argument 5:14, how to evaluate inductive arguments 5:21, statistical generalization 5:28, application 5:32, inference 5:34, arguments from analogy 5:38, causal reasoning 5:39, probability 5:40, decision 5:41

Lecture 1-2

what argument are, the include reason 3:31, it is an intelectual process, it is a series of statements to establish a define or understand proposition 3:49, arguements are ordered to a structure 4:50

uses of arguments 4:10?, establish propositions 4:17, explanation of proposition 5:25, understanding of propositions 5:52

Lecture 1-3

Try to seperare what arguer is trying, purpose of persuading or convincing (often good and bad reasons), purpose of justification of reasons for a belief (usually good reasons)

Purposes people have for giving arguments 0:27, Persuading- making people believe or do something that they would not otherwise believe or do 1:20, Justifying-showing someone reasons to believe a conclusion that they may or may not already believe 2:05, not necessarily trying to achieve a certain outcome,just trying to help some one understand good reasons to make their own decision 2:58, Persuaders and Justifiers may use the same argument, the difference lies in their intent. 3:30, Used car salesman persuades 3:40, reasons used may be good or bad 4:08, friend justifies 3:44, tries to use only good reasons 3:55, Arguers intent determines classification of argument 4:40, Persuasion- the arguer is trying to change someones mind 4:47, Justification- the arguer is trying to give reasons to believe something, may just be a confirmation of already held beliefs 4:55, the pythagorean theorem is an example of an already held belief that you may want to see a proof of

Lecture 1-4

A purpose of arguments is explanation 0:20, explaining- is giving a reason why something happened, or why it is true 0:58, everyone believes the conclusion 1:16, kinds of explanations 2:25, casual 2:32, why did the brige collapse?, the earthquake shook it, teleological - purposeful 2:47, why did joe go to the grocery store?, to buy milk, formal 3:12, why doesn't this peg fit in the round hole?, the peg is square, material 3:32, why is the golf club light?, it is made of graphite., can use all explanation types for the same event, train whistle explanations 4:07, skydiving explanations 5:06, explanation is an attempt to fit a particular phenomenon into general pattern in order to increase understanding and remove bewilderment or surprise 10:50 & 12:30, show that it is kind of like other things that have happened before 11:30, explanation is- not persuasion, not justification, not generalization and not prediction 12:38

Lecture 1-6

misspelling and mispronunciation don't make arguments bad 00:35

focus on rules of language that deal with meaning 0:55

levels of language, linguistic level - meaning 01:30, referential or descriptive theory is not relevant 02:25, meaning is use 03:30, language used in different way 05:10, speech act level - advise, even without action influence 06:13, conversational level - persuasion, bringing effect 06:45

Lecture 1-7

linguistic level 00:20, order a set of words that are meaningful according to semantic, syntax-grammar, 00:30, components of language - meaningful words 01:10, meaningful words with wrongs structure don't work - no meaning 02:40, even with right structure and meaningful word don't always make sense - Chomsky 03:10, sometimes in not clear is it meaningful or not - examples (garden path sentences) 03:40, buffalo buffalo buffalo 04:55

Lecture 1-8

speech acts 0:05, examples 0:15, baseball batter: "am I out or do I walk?" umpire:"you aint nuttin till I say so", the saying so makes it so 0:50, bride:"i do", husband:"i do" official:" I now pronounce you husband and wife", the saying so makes it so, thereby test 1:58, by uttering "i now pronounce you husband and wife", he thereby pronounced them husband and wife (test passed), if I say"_______" then I thereby ___________., if I promise you then i thereby promise, if I thank you then I thereby thank you, if I apologize then I thereby apologize, speech acts only valid under certain circumstances 3:53, the pronouncer must have legal authority, the bride and groom must have a license, in some jurisdictions they must be of different sexes, thereby test updated 5:25, if I say "__________"under the appropriate circumstances then I thereby ______________., if I promise to come to your party under the appropriate circumstances, then I thereby promise to come to your party, test passed, if I thank you for the cheese under the appropriate circumstances, then I thereby thank you, test passed, if I apologize for spilling wine on your white carpet under appropriate circumstances, then I thereby apologize, even if I spilled the wine on purpose and am not really sorry, I have still apologized and committed a speech act, test passed, special circumstances 6:35, depending on if the promised outcome is desired by the recipient the speech act may be 6:40, a promise, I promise if you mow my lawn I will give you $20, a threat, I promise if you walk on my lawn I will shoot you, circumstances effect if a speech act took place at all 7:12, " I bet you yada yada yada" is only a speech act if the bet is accepted by someone else, why speech acts matter to this class 8:05, arguing is a speech act, provide reasons, justify reasons, justifying and explaining are speech acts, "I suggest you buy the book" is a speech act 8:50

Lecture 1-9

conversational act 00:13, informing is a conversational act 01:30, speech acts and their associated effects 01:49, question - answer, apology - forgiveness, promise - reliance, definition of a conversational act 02:27, conversational act does not occur when the effect does not occur 02:40, the firing a gun example 03:00, example with the baker 03:45, right ingiredients, right order, right time, rules of conversational act (cooperative communication) 04:35, conversational maxims 05:30, quantity - don't say more then you need and don't say to little 05:55, quality - don't lie, mislead, deceive or you have no reason to beleive 06:15, relevance - be relevant 07:00, manner - be brief, orderly, avoid obscurity, ambiguity 07:40, conversational implication 09:50, possibility of misleading (noncooperative communication) 11:20, cancel conversational implication 11:48, if sentence p conversationally implies sentence q then you can deny q and p still might be true 12:10, conversational implication is not logical implication 12:30, example "Alice is my sister" 12:40, issues of leaving out information, politician example 13:45, politician is not following the maxims of quantity (he is not having a common purpose) - 15:40, distinction between conversational implication and logical entailment 16:15, How to refuse arguments 16:22, when you don't like the premise because it is misleading or conversational implies something false that's not a way to show that the premise is false 16:25, to show that a premise is false you have to show that it actually logically entails something that is false is contains something that is logically 16:35

Week 2

Lecture 2-1

Language of argument is important 00:10

Definition of argument 00:25

word indicate that some sentences are reasons for others 01:00, AND and SO exapmple - switchign or not switching 01:10, SO indicates that one sentence is a reason for the other 02:00

Argument markers 03:20, Conclusion markers 03:33, sometimes it is not clear - be careful, think, check content; example: the "since" reason marker 05:00, the sentence BEFORE the marker is a reason, the other is a conclusion - 03:35, examples: therefore, thus, hence, accordingly 02:40, sometimes it is not clear - be careful, think, check content; example: "so" 06:45, Reason markers 04:00, the sentence AFTER the marker is a reason or a premise 04:10, examples: because, for, as, for the reason that, and the reason why 04:29, another "since " example 07:40

substitute trick for clearing - substitute with "because" 08:17 or ask 09:10

Lecture 2-2

order of arguments, not order of words 00:15, example of professor and teaching 00:35

standard form 01:20, state premises ABOVE THE LINE and use dot pyramid for conclusion BELOW THE LINE 01:45

Lecture 2-3

A Problem for Arguments, When are premises real reasons for a conclusion? 0:18, An argument cannot justify you in believing that the conclusion is true unless you are justified in believing that the premises are true 1:59, The Problem of Skeptical Regress 3:20, you can't believe the conclusion of Argument (A)unless you can believe the premises of argument (A) 2:15, so then you need an argument (B) to back up the premise of argument (A), but then you need an argument (C) to back up the premise of argument (B), but then you need an argument (D) to back up the premise of argument (C), but then you need an argument (E) to back up the premise of argument (D), ... to no end, FAULTY solutions to the problem of skeptical regress 3:35, start with a premise that is unjustified 3:40, this works if your audience will let you get away with it 4:32, just guessing at premise, can not really justify conclusion, if unjustified premises were allowed, anything could be proven, and the exact opposite could be proven with the exact opposite unproven premise, this suggests a big problem if opposites can be proven, use an argument with a circular structure 3:55, claim (A) justified by claim (B) 5:25, claim (B) justified by claim (C), claim (C) justified by claim (D), claim (D) justified by claim (E), claim (E) justified by claim (A), circles back to first premise, use an infinite chain of arguments 4:10, argument (n) justified by argument (n-1) 7:20, argument (n-1) justified by argument (n-2), argument (n-2) justified by argument (n-3), argument (n-3) justified by argument (n-4), ... to no end, could prove anything 7:20, once again this is a big problem, a premise needs independent justification, BETTER (but still not perfect) solutions to the problem of Skeptical Regress (AKA practical every day life solutions) 9:18, start from assumptions everyone shares 9:33, Honda example 9:39, assure the audiance, by appeal to an authority (a reliable trusted person or institution) 10:12, this works if the authority is accepted by your audience, discount objections 10:33, claim that the source of the premise may have been wrong in the past, but this time they got it right, you may discount after the audience objects, or you may do a discount before they object, guard your claim 11:08, my premise might be true, many people believe this premise is true, summary of this lecture 11:43, In order to get around the problem of skeptical regress and get the argument started, you need to find shared assumptions with your audiaence., might be shared assumptions of the validity of the premises, might be shared assumptions of the authorities on the premise, need shared assumptions to get the argument going, with like minded audiences finding shared assumptions will be relativlly easy, with other audiences... w e l l l l not so much

Lecture 2-4

Solving Skeptical Regression using 00:20, Assuring 00:33, Example: I assure you that smoking is bad for your health 00:38, Same as "it's obvious", "Everybody knows", "clearly", "certainly" 01:00, Forcing to accept premises without citing 01:25, Good: if I don't give you a reason, you can't question the reason 01:40, Type of assurances 02:18, Authoritative 02:25, Example: Surgeon general has shown 02:33, The authority is cited 03:20, but who is the authority, what reasons the authority has 03:55, Reflexive 05:05, I believe that, I am certain that, I feel sure that, I thought it about it for years, etc. 06:00, In some societies it is not polite to question the person 05:40, Abusive 07:10, calling it nonsence, everybody know this, etc. 07:35, Conditional obuse implies to you... 07:50, Appeal to common sense 08:10, assurances are needed because of the limited time, one can't check everything 09:00, assurance saves time and helps you avoid skeptical regress 10:00, but be careful, trick with assurances 10:30, citing untrustworthy authorities 10:34, distractions 10:50, that's obvious, it's sure, it's certain, dropping assurances 11:20, He says -> it is reported that -> sources have said -> there are, we want an assurance when 12:30, someone might question the claim, the audiance accepts the authority, it would be too much trouble to cite all of the evidence, assurances are not appropriate when 12:55, no one would question the claim anyway, the authority is not trustworthy, you are easily able to give the full explanation, Guarding, Discountng

Lecture 2-5

guarding - making premises of your arguing weaker so it is harder to object to them 00:20, The question is: how much weakening?, example: nuclear power plants explode - unjustified premise 00:35, opponents respond by point at "too weak" - might is to weak, sin might not come tomorrow 02:00, to weaken so much that a chance to happen is so slight to be negligible is not good 02:20, To judge the guarding is to question, Why is guarding used?, Is it weakened the premise to much that the conclusion no longer follows?, Three ways of doing guarding 03:30, Extent 03:40, Example students alcohol - all, most, many, some, it is guarding when you weaken a premise beyond what would otherwise be expected in the context 05:00, Probability 05:30, Example: O.J. Simspon - absolutetly certain, probably, likely, ther's a chance, might, Using almost certain 06:50, Mental 07:19, concerning a mental state of a person stating a premise, Example: I know, believe, tend to believe, inclined to believe 07:40

Lecture 2-6

Discounting - citing a possible criticism in order to reject it or counter it 00:10, Example: buying a ring, expensive but beautiful 00:25, saying expensive, saying beautiful, in the contrast of the two claims, emphasizes the second claim about beauty (more important) 01:25, the word order is sometimes important (and, but, because) 02:05, expensive but beautiful - for buying, beautiful but expensive - against buying, Functions of discounting terms 04:00, they contrast the two claims, They emphasize one of the claims, Different terms, with the "but" word you can discount the objection 02:30, They assert two claims, you can do the same with "although" 03:30, you can also use even if, even though, whereas, nevertheless, nonetheless, still 04:10, some of these word have also other meanings 04:45, you can check with substitution method 04:50, intention to use this terms 05:25, state it before the oponent does, in order to head off the objection, in order to protect the premises, to avoid skeptical regression, tricks with discounting words 06:10, trick of discounting straw (easy to knock over) people - picking the easiest objections 06:20, combine with other tricks (using guarding terms and assuring terms) 07:55, putting unguarded term in the mouth of the objector 08:28, a rule of thumb 09:15, leading to easiest objections, consider objections the arguer is not considering

Lecture 2-7

Evaluation, Evaluative Language is another way to stop the Skeptical Regress, politician health care plan-example 0:17, YAY Duke-example, understanding evaluative language, interpret good as meets the standards 2:39, interpret bad as violates the standards, standards change depending on context 2:50, art, aesthetic standards, stock market pick, meets financial investment standards, health care plan, meets the standard of what is good for country, if we say eating fish is immoral 3:22, we say it violates a standard, a moral standard, a trick to stave of skeptical regress 3:53, when we call something good we leave it up to the context to specify what the standards are, by only alluding to the standards you have made the claim more defensible, by being vague the audience is unsure of where to object, this makes your premise more defensible, easier to stave off skeptical regress, another trick to stave of skeptical regress 4:55, we don't need to agree what standards apply, left turn example, quicker route, efficiency standard, more beautiful scenery, aesthetic standard, people agree that a left turn is good but are thinking in different contexts, get more agreement by just stating premise is good, without limiting it to a named context, people will find reasons to agree in their own context, objections avoided, skeptical regress staved off, different levels of evaluation 5:59, general (abstract) 6:06, good/bad, ought/ought not, should/should not, right/wrong, general evaluations can apply to a wide range of things, Specific (concrete) 6:52, beautiful/ugly 6:57, painting YES, fertilizer NO, stock NO, cruel/brave 7:25, person YES, painting NO, soldier YES, chair NO, comfortable/uncomfortable 7:38, chair YES, soldier NO, specific words only apply to limited ranges of things 7:52, relationship between general and specific words 8:37, specific words are defined in terms of GENERAL words, beautiful = looks GOOD, bargain = GOOD price, is there anything wrong with using evaluative language? 13:43, short answer, NO, long answer, some people think you shouldn't evaluate at all, just describe. 13:50, these people are kidding themselves, you can't live that way, when you evaluate you should think of the standards that apply to the case at hand 14:10, people tend to think of things as good or bad without thinking of what standards apply 14:25, some people use evaluative terms without reason or justification.This is called slanting. 15:06, slanting is typically used when people run out of reasons, sometimes slanters use nasty names, slanting is often an indication that the slanter has reached a weak point in their argument and run out of good ideas. 15:40, you should think about what standards apply/why is the thing good or bad? 14:48, asking each other what standards apply is a good way to discover the root of disagreements and misunderstandings14:55, dangers of evaluative terms

Lecture 2-8

Close analysis 00:37, Example by Robert Redford 02:26

Lecture 2-9

Lecture 2-10

week 3

Lecture 3-5

Lecture 3-6

Lecture 3-7