Think Again - Video Map

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Think Again - Video Map by Mind Map: Think Again - Video Map

1. Lecture 1-5

1.1. Purposes of argument 0:10

1.1.1. Justification

1.1.2. Explanation

1.2. arguments are made out of language 0:50

1.2.1. animal language 1:16

1.2.1.1. arguing goat 1:39

1.2.1.1.1. humans- the animal that argues 2:08

1.3. "Materials" of argument - language 0:40

1.3.1. important 2:56

1.3.1.1. Helen Keller 3:06

1.3.2. conventional 4:20

1.3.2.1. correct side of road 4:40

1.3.2.2. football / soccer 5:28

1.3.2.3. money / socks arbitrary name 6:01

1.3.3. representational limits 6:32

1.3.3.1. Lincoln 5 legged horse 6:47

1.3.3.2. money / socks, poor / rich 7:32

1.3.4. social limits 8:06

1.3.4.1. mega lemons 8:40

1.3.4.2. monty python anagrams 9:28

1.4. Rules of the language

1.4.1. semantics - meaning 10:11

1.4.1.1. gimme pepperoni 10:26

1.4.2. physical production 10:57

1.4.2.1. volume, pronunciation 11:07

1.4.3. structural combination 11:15

1.4.3.1. syntax, spelling, grammar 11:21

1.4.4. etiquette 11:30

1.4.5. finger / singer 12:10

1.4.5.1. subconscious rule

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

3. see Mars example 7:20

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

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

6. the goal is to increase understanding 2:00

7. how to avoid fallacies 5:54

7.1. vagueness 6:00

7.2. ambiguity 6:01

7.3. irrelevance 6:02

7.4. begging the question 6:10

8. definition of an argument 6:26

8.1. a series of sentences, statement, and propositions

8.2. some are premises one is the conclusion

8.3. premises give reasons for the conclusion

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

9.1. asking

9.2. getting premsion

9.3. legal rights

10. Persuasion

11. "I don't like fish"

11.1. just a personal preference, no explanation required

12. not as good as "good"

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

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

13.1.1. Duke 0:55

13.1.1.1. "YAY Duke!"

13.1.1.1.1. just a personal expression of emotion-no explanation required

13.1.1.2. "Duke has a good team"

13.1.1.2.1. needs an explanation to back it up

13.1.2. healthcare 1:29

13.1.2.1. "YAY healthcare"

13.1.2.1.1. no explanation required

13.1.2.2. "my healthcare plan is good for the country"

13.1.2.2.1. needs an explanation to back it up

13.1.3. fish 1:35

13.1.3.1. "it is immoral/wrong to eat fish"

13.1.3.1.1. needs an explanation to back it up

13.1.4. the general difference 2:28

13.1.4.1. expressing personal preference

13.1.4.1.1. requires no explanation, it just is

13.1.4.2. making an evaluation

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

14.1. ??? 5:39

14.1.1. Bodes law example 8:29

14.1.2. Aids example 9:47

15. what arguments are not 2:26

15.1. monty python 0:40

15.2. they are not fights 1:00

15.3. they are not abuse 1:55

15.4. not a complaint 2:25

15.5. contradiction 3:00

16. life on Mars example 0:42

17. tricky cases 9:50

17.1. contextually evaluative 9:56

17.1.1. general meaning of word is not positive or negative

17.1.2. they only suggest an evaluation in certain context 10:06

17.1.2.1. for example liberal is a neutral word

17.1.2.1.1. but to a conservative -liberal is bad

17.1.2.1.2. but to a liberal- liberal is good

17.1.3. not evaluative in the strict sense 10:58

17.1.4. only evaluative in context 11:05

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

17.1.6. 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

17.2. combining positive and negative evaluation words 11:57

17.2.1. good

17.2.1.1. positive

17.2.2. pretty

17.2.2.1. positive

17.2.3. pretty good

17.2.4. darn

17.2.4.1. negative

17.2.5. pretty darn good

17.2.5.1. means very good

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

17.3. too 12:57

17.3.1. if spicy

17.3.1.1. is good

17.3.2. too spicy

17.3.2.1. is bad

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

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

18.1. requires explaining reasons for backup

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

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

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

22. Lecture 3-2

23. Lecture 3-1

23.1. Lecture 3-3

23.1.1. Lecture 3-4

23.2. SORRY I CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE, NO TIME

24. absurdity shown by shortest circle 6:00

25. there is life on Mars because there is life on Mars

25.1. once again this is a big problem

26. how to analyze arguments 3:35

26.1. find arguments 3:50

26.2. distinguish arguments from passages 4:10

26.2.1. 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

26.3. order arguments 4:33

26.4. find missing parts 4:40

27. Week 1

27.1. Lecture 1-1

27.1.1. Having reasons for arguments

27.1.2. Course map

27.1.2.1. how to evaluate deductive arguments 4:50

27.1.2.1.1. purpose of argument 4:58

27.1.2.1.2. categorical argument 5:14

27.1.2.2. how to evaluate inductive arguments 5:21

27.1.2.2.1. statistical generalization 5:28

27.1.2.2.2. application 5:32

27.1.2.2.3. inference 5:34

27.1.2.2.4. arguments from analogy 5:38

27.1.2.2.5. causal reasoning 5:39

27.1.2.2.6. probability 5:40

27.1.2.2.7. decision 5:41

27.2. Lecture 1-2

27.2.1. what argument are

27.2.1.1. the include reason 3:31

27.2.1.2. it is an intelectual process

27.2.1.3. it is a series of statements to establish a define or understand proposition 3:49

27.2.1.4. arguements are ordered to a structure 4:50

27.2.2. uses of arguments 4:10?

27.2.2.1. establish propositions 4:17

27.2.2.2. explanation of proposition 5:25

27.2.2.3. understanding of propositions 5:52

27.3. Lecture 1-3

27.3.1. Try to seperare what arguer is trying

27.3.1.1. purpose of persuading or convincing (often good and bad reasons)

27.3.1.2. purpose of justification of reasons for a belief (usually good reasons)

27.3.2. Purposes people have for giving arguments 0:27

27.3.2.1. Persuading- making people believe or do something that they would not otherwise believe or do 1:20

27.3.2.2. Justifying-showing someone reasons to believe a conclusion that they may or may not already believe 2:05

27.3.2.2.1. not necessarily trying to achieve a certain outcome,just trying to help some one understand good reasons to make their own decision 2:58

27.3.2.3. Persuaders and Justifiers may use the same argument, the difference lies in their intent. 3:30

27.3.2.3.1. Used car salesman persuades 3:40

27.3.2.3.2. friend justifies 3:44

27.3.2.4. Arguers intent determines classification of argument 4:40

27.3.2.4.1. Persuasion- the arguer is trying to change someones mind 4:47

27.3.2.4.2. Justification- the arguer is trying to give reasons to believe something, may just be a confirmation of already held beliefs 4:55

27.4. Lecture 1-4

27.4.1. A purpose of arguments is explanation 0:20

27.4.1.1. explaining- is giving a reason why something happened, or why it is true 0:58

27.4.1.2. everyone believes the conclusion 1:16

27.4.1.3. kinds of explanations 2:25

27.4.1.3.1. casual 2:32

27.4.1.3.2. teleological - purposeful 2:47

27.4.1.3.3. formal 3:12

27.4.1.3.4. material 3:32

27.4.1.4. can use all explanation types for the same event

27.4.1.4.1. train whistle explanations 4:07

27.4.1.4.2. skydiving explanations 5:06

27.4.1.5. 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

27.4.1.5.1. show that it is kind of like other things that have happened before 11:30

27.4.1.6. explanation is- not persuasion, not justification, not generalization and not prediction 12:38

27.5. Lecture 1-6

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

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

27.5.3. levels of language

27.5.3.1. linguistic level - meaning 01:30

27.5.3.1.1. referential or descriptive theory is not relevant 02:25

27.5.3.1.2. meaning is use 03:30

27.5.3.1.3. language used in different way 05:10

27.5.3.2. speech act level - advise, even without action influence 06:13

27.5.3.3. conversational level - persuasion, bringing effect 06:45

27.6. Lecture 1-7

27.6.1. linguistic level 00:20

27.6.1.1. order a set of words that are meaningful according to semantic, syntax-grammar, 00:30

27.6.1.2. components of language - meaningful words 01:10

27.6.1.3. meaningful words with wrongs structure don't work - no meaning 02:40

27.6.1.4. even with right structure and meaningful word don't always make sense - Chomsky 03:10

27.6.1.5. sometimes in not clear is it meaningful or not - examples (garden path sentences) 03:40

27.6.1.6. buffalo buffalo buffalo 04:55

27.7. Lecture 1-8

27.7.1. speech acts 0:05

27.7.1.1. examples 0:15

27.7.1.1.1. baseball batter: "am I out or do I walk?" umpire:"you aint nuttin till I say so"

27.7.1.1.2. bride:"i do", husband:"i do" official:" I now pronounce you husband and wife"

27.7.1.2. thereby test 1:58

27.7.1.2.1. by uttering "i now pronounce you husband and wife"

27.7.1.2.2. if I say"_______" then I thereby ___________.

27.7.1.2.3. if I promise you then i thereby promise

27.7.1.2.4. if I thank you then I thereby thank you

27.7.1.2.5. if I apologize then I thereby apologize

27.7.1.3. speech acts only valid under certain circumstances 3:53

27.7.1.3.1. the pronouncer must have legal authority

27.7.1.3.2. the bride and groom must have a license

27.7.1.3.3. in some jurisdictions they must be of different sexes

27.7.1.4. thereby test updated 5:25

27.7.1.4.1. if I say "__________"under the appropriate circumstances then I thereby ______________.

27.7.1.4.2. if I promise to come to your party under the appropriate circumstances

27.7.1.4.3. if I thank you for the cheese under the appropriate circumstances

27.7.1.4.4. if I apologize for spilling wine on your white carpet under appropriate circumstances

27.7.1.5. special circumstances 6:35

27.7.1.5.1. depending on if the promised outcome is desired by the recipient the speech act may be 6:40

27.7.1.5.2. circumstances effect if a speech act took place at all 7:12

27.7.1.6. why speech acts matter to this class 8:05

27.7.1.6.1. arguing is a speech act

27.7.1.6.2. justifying and explaining are speech acts

27.7.1.7. "I suggest you buy the book" is a speech act 8:50

27.8. Lecture 1-9

27.8.1. conversational act 00:13

27.8.1.1. informing is a conversational act 01:30

27.8.1.2. speech acts and their associated effects 01:49

27.8.1.2.1. question - answer

27.8.1.2.2. apology - forgiveness

27.8.1.2.3. promise - reliance

27.8.1.3. definition of a conversational act 02:27

27.8.1.4. conversational act does not occur when the effect does not occur 02:40

27.8.1.4.1. the firing a gun example 03:00

27.8.1.5. example with the baker 03:45

27.8.1.5.1. right ingiredients

27.8.1.5.2. right order

27.8.1.5.3. right time

27.8.1.6. rules of conversational act (cooperative communication) 04:35

27.8.1.6.1. conversational maxims 05:30

27.8.1.6.2. quantity - don't say more then you need and don't say to little 05:55

27.8.1.6.3. quality - don't lie, mislead, deceive or you have no reason to beleive 06:15

27.8.1.6.4. relevance - be relevant 07:00

27.8.1.6.5. manner - be brief, orderly, avoid obscurity, ambiguity 07:40

27.8.1.7. conversational implication 09:50

27.8.1.8. possibility of misleading (noncooperative communication) 11:20

27.8.1.9. cancel conversational implication 11:48

27.8.1.9.1. if sentence p conversationally implies sentence q then you can deny q and p still might be true 12:10

27.8.1.9.2. conversational implication is not logical implication 12:30

27.8.1.10. issues of leaving out information

27.8.1.10.1. politician example 13:45

27.8.1.10.2. politician is not following the maxims of quantity (he is not having a common purpose) - 15:40

27.8.1.11. distinction between conversational implication and logical entailment 16:15

27.8.1.11.1. How to refuse arguments 16:22

27.8.1.11.2. 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

27.8.1.11.3. 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

28. Week 2

28.1. Lecture 2-1

28.1.1. Language of argument is important 00:10

28.1.2. Definition of argument 00:25

28.1.3. word indicate that some sentences are reasons for others 01:00

28.1.3.1. AND and SO exapmple - switchign or not switching 01:10

28.1.3.2. SO indicates that one sentence is a reason for the other 02:00

28.1.4. Argument markers 03:20

28.1.4.1. Conclusion markers 03:33

28.1.4.1.1. sometimes it is not clear - be careful, think, check content; example: the "since" reason marker 05:00

28.1.4.1.2. the sentence BEFORE the marker is a reason, the other is a conclusion - 03:35

28.1.4.1.3. examples: therefore, thus, hence, accordingly 02:40

28.1.4.1.4. sometimes it is not clear - be careful, think, check content; example: "so" 06:45

28.1.4.2. Reason markers 04:00

28.1.4.2.1. the sentence AFTER the marker is a reason or a premise 04:10

28.1.4.2.2. examples: because, for, as, for the reason that, and the reason why 04:29

28.1.4.2.3. another "since " example 07:40

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

28.2. Lecture 2-2

28.2.1. order of arguments, not order of words 00:15

28.2.1.1. example of professor and teaching 00:35

28.2.2. standard form 01:20

28.2.2.1. state premises ABOVE THE LINE and use dot pyramid for conclusion BELOW THE LINE 01:45

28.3. Lecture 2-3

28.3.1. A Problem for Arguments

28.3.1.1. When are premises real reasons for a conclusion? 0:18

28.3.1.2. 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

28.3.1.3. The Problem of Skeptical Regress 3:20

28.3.1.3.1. you can't believe the conclusion of Argument (A)unless you can believe the premises of argument (A) 2:15

28.3.1.3.2. FAULTY solutions to the problem of skeptical regress 3:35

28.3.1.3.3. BETTER (but still not perfect) solutions to the problem of Skeptical Regress (AKA practical every day life solutions) 9:18

28.3.1.4. summary of this lecture 11:43

28.3.1.4.1. In order to get around the problem of skeptical regress and get the argument started, you need to find shared assumptions with your audiaence.

28.4. Lecture 2-4

28.4.1. Solving Skeptical Regression using 00:20

28.4.1.1. Assuring 00:33

28.4.1.1.1. Example: I assure you that smoking is bad for your health 00:38

28.4.1.1.2. Same as "it's obvious", "Everybody knows", "clearly", "certainly" 01:00

28.4.1.1.3. Forcing to accept premises without citing 01:25

28.4.1.1.4. Good: if I don't give you a reason, you can't question the reason 01:40

28.4.1.1.5. Type of assurances 02:18

28.4.1.1.6. assurances are needed because of the limited time, one can't check everything 09:00

28.4.1.1.7. we want an assurance when 12:30

28.4.1.1.8. assurances are not appropriate when 12:55

28.4.1.2. Guarding

28.4.1.3. Discountng

28.5. Lecture 2-5

28.5.1. guarding - making premises of your arguing weaker so it is harder to object to them 00:20

28.5.1.1. The question is: how much weakening?

28.5.1.1.1. example: nuclear power plants explode - unjustified premise 00:35

28.5.1.1.2. opponents respond by point at "too weak" - might is to weak, sin might not come tomorrow 02:00

28.5.1.1.3. to weaken so much that a chance to happen is so slight to be negligible is not good 02:20

28.5.1.2. To judge the guarding is to question

28.5.1.2.1. Why is guarding used?

28.5.1.2.2. Is it weakened the premise to much that the conclusion no longer follows?

28.5.1.3. Three ways of doing guarding 03:30

28.5.1.3.1. Extent 03:40

28.5.1.3.2. Probability 05:30

28.5.1.3.3. Mental 07:19

28.6. Lecture 2-6

28.6.1. Discounting - citing a possible criticism in order to reject it or counter it 00:10

28.6.1.1. Example: buying a ring, expensive but beautiful 00:25

28.6.1.1.1. saying expensive

28.6.1.1.2. saying beautiful

28.6.1.1.3. in the contrast of the two claims

28.6.1.1.4. emphasizes the second claim about beauty (more important) 01:25

28.6.1.2. the word order is sometimes important (and, but, because) 02:05

28.6.1.2.1. expensive but beautiful - for buying

28.6.1.2.2. beautiful but expensive - against buying

28.6.1.3. Functions of discounting terms 04:00

28.6.1.3.1. they contrast the two claims

28.6.1.3.2. They emphasize one of the claims

28.6.1.4. Different terms

28.6.1.4.1. with the "but" word you can discount the objection 02:30

28.6.1.4.2. you can do the same with "although" 03:30

28.6.1.4.3. you can also use even if, even though, whereas, nevertheless, nonetheless, still 04:10

28.6.1.4.4. some of these word have also other meanings 04:45

28.6.1.4.5. you can check with substitution method 04:50

28.6.1.5. intention to use this terms 05:25

28.6.1.5.1. state it before the oponent does

28.6.1.5.2. in order to head off the objection

28.6.1.5.3. in order to protect the premises

28.6.1.5.4. to avoid skeptical regression

28.6.1.6. tricks with discounting words 06:10

28.6.1.6.1. trick of discounting straw (easy to knock over) people - picking the easiest objections 06:20

28.6.1.6.2. combine with other tricks (using guarding terms and assuring terms) 07:55

28.6.1.6.3. a rule of thumb 09:15

28.7. Lecture 2-7

28.7.1. Evaluation

28.7.1.1. Evaluative Language is another way to stop the Skeptical Regress

28.7.1.1.1. politician health care plan-example 0:17

28.7.1.1.2. YAY Duke-example

28.7.1.1.3. understanding evaluative language

28.8. Lecture 2-8

28.8.1. Close analysis 00:37

28.8.1.1. Example by Robert Redford 02:26

28.9. Lecture 2-9

28.10. Lecture 2-10

29. week 3

29.1. Lecture 3-5

29.2. Lecture 3-6

29.3. Lecture 3-7

30. 1

30.1. hi