Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Scholastic Logic and Apologetics: A Basic Guide | Scholastic Answers | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Scholastic Logic and Apologetics: A Basic Guide
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
recently I saw that another Catholic
YouTuber who shall remain unnamed was
selling a course on the relationship
between logic and apologetics for nearly
$100 I've for some time been interested
in Scholastic logic and even wrote a
small catechism on the issue so this
pequ my interest upon looking into the
course I was shocked the entire course
was a collection of explaining what are
called informal fallacies or as they are
commonly called logical fallacies this
may come as a surprise to some but these
informal fallacies are in the grand
scheme of traditional logic quite
unimportant in fact in all my reading of
traditional Scholastic theology I've
almost never seen one of these logical
fallacies ever used to reply to an
objection further many of these types of
fallacies listed are not fallacies at
all for example calling appeal to
Authority a fallacy is quite silly since
we have a whole religion that is founded
on Authority and if you are really
interested in learning about this this
is the type of information that you can
get on Wikipedia certainly not the type
to pay $100 for
the situation in apologetic circles is
grim rather than a direct response to
another's arguments the entire thing has
become a game of playing Counter
examples or other specious modes of
reputation with no concern to actually
show whether and how the argument itself
does not follow anyways what I wanted to
do in this video is to teach you the
type of information taught in Scholastic
logic that is actually useful for
refuting Arguments for free if you want
to thank me for this you can become a
patron at patreon.com mist or give a
onetime donation to wagner.com donate
but this video in its entirety is
completely free first we'll need to
briefly deal with some fundamental
matters in logic and then I will give
you an easy four-step process to
evaluating and refuting arguments using
the Scholastic
method before we get into refuting
arguments we need to understand what an
argument actually is if we reflect on
our own process of knowing and reasoning
we will see that there are three steps
first what is called Simple apprehension
here we grasp the concept of something
before we affirm or deny anything about
that concept for example if we were to
grasp the concept of man the expression
of this concept is called a term so
first you have a concept and then you
express it and this is the term second
we go to make judgments about that
concept here we are really just
combining two concepts together by the
term is so if I grasp the concept of
quote man and grasp the concept of quote
Socrates I could combine these two in
the Judgment that quote Socrates man the
expression of this judgment is called a
proposition so the Judgment exists in
the intellect and then the expression of
that is a proposition third we go into
Reason by combining two judgments
together in order to make a new judgment
thus we could have the Judgment that
quote Socrates is a man in the Judgment
that quote all men are mortal in order
to draw forth the conclusion that
Socrates is Mortal so in whole this
would be that Socrates is a man all men
are mortal therefore Socrates is Mortal
here we have a syllogism in the int
collect this is called reasoning and its
expression is called a syllogism so now
what are the parts of a syllogism in
each syllogism there are six terms and
three propositions because each judgment
as we went over above has two terms one
is the subject that is the first term
and this is joined together with the
predicate which is the second term and
it's joined together by What's called
the capula or
is the three propositions are called the
major premise which is the first
proposition the minor premise which is
the second proposition then the
conclusion which is the third
proposition and while I said there are
six terms we will see that each term is
repeated twice so we will say that there
are three unique terms first we have the
major term which is the term uniquely in
the major premise second we have the
minor term which is the term uniquely in
the minor premise and then we have the
middle term which is both in the major
and the minor premise and does not show
up in the
conclusion so with our syllogism above
Socrates is a man all men are mortal
therefore Socrates is Mortal Socrates is
a man is the major premise all men are
mortal is the minor premise therefore
Socrates is Mortal that's the conclusion
so Socrates that's the major term man
that's the middle term mortal that's the
minor term and each of these as I said
are repeated twice so now that we have
all this out of the way knowing the
syllogism and the various parts of the
syllogism and then also the three steps
in reasoning at this point you may be
wondering how can you say that the only
way of arguing is a Sy M since sometimes
there are a lot of premises and terms in
an argument and at other times we only
state one premise then immediately draw
a conclusion the answer to this is that
while other forms of argumentation may
not look like a syllogism no matter what
every single argument reduces to a
syllogism which brings us to our first
step when we hear an argument against
Catholicism we need to put it in a
syllogism there are usually three ways
that arguments are stated which hide a
syllogism first many people use what are
called enamine and enamine m is an
argument where only the major premise is
stated and the conclusion is immediately
drawn assuming the minor premise so for
example if someone were to Simply State
Socrates is a man therefore Socrates is
Mortal they would be assuming the minor
premise that all men are mortal an
example of this that commonly comes up
when talking to Muslims Jesus never said
I am God worship me therefore Jesus is
not God what is assumed in this enemy is
that in order for Jesus to be God he
must say I am God worship me which is
simply a false assumption the ability to
expose the hidden minor premise is one
of the most important skills to learn
second many people use what is called an
epiy an epiy has a major and minor
premise but mixed into the argument is
proof for the premises this is commonly
the practice of earlier Scholastics for
example if I were to say Jesus is God as
is affirmed by the Divine names given to
him he who is God is eternal therefore
Jesus is eternal in my major premise I
added proof to the premise while this
can offer a more concise method it is
less apt for analysis it is better to
change the form into multiple syllogisms
which may require unpacking an enthe
where the Epic occurs so in our example
I would split it into two syllogisms the
second being referred to as the proof of
the major premise syllogism one Jesus Is
God he who God is eternal therefore
Jesus is eternal proof of the major
premise Divine names are given to Jesus
divine names are given to he who is to
God therefore Jesus is God
or I could simply state it as an enamine
the proof given usually stands as the
major premise in the proposition it
proves as the conclusion third the dreaded
dreaded
sores this is unfortunately one of the
most common ways of arguing especially
in modern philosophy the sores is one of
the most dangerous ways of arguing as
well for it is very common to slip in
sophisms into the long chain of
reasoning but the best way to defeat the
dreaded sores is simply to break it into
a number of syllogisms
here's an example of AES Jesus is a man
a man is a rational animal a rational
animal is one with intellectual Powers
one with intellectual Powers is one with
a will therefore Jesus has a will we can
split it up into a number of syllogisms
Jesus is a man a man is a rational
animal therefore Jesus is a rational
animal Jesus is a rational animal a
rational animal is one with intellectual
Powers therefore Jesus is one with
intellectual Powers Jesus is one with
intellectual Powers one with
intellectual Powers is one with a will
therefore Jesus is one with a will it is
important to remember that the
conclusion of each syllogism becomes the
major premise of the next one at this
point each individual syllogism and its
connection to the next one can be
critiqued as you can imagine this can be
quite complicated often a sores is mixed
with an epiy or an argument is so remote
from a syllogism that you need to read
between the lines in order to discover
their way reasoning but rest assured
every time someone gives an argument it
really is just as simple as them
fundamentally taking taking two premises
and making one conclusion out of them
now to step two after we've turned
whatever argument we are dealing with
into a syllogism we can now begin step
two this step involves questioning the
conclusion the most important place to
begin is to asks ourselves does the
conclusion of the syllogism contradict
Catholic Doctrine if no then there is no
point in even continuing the
conversation except perhaps to have
discussions on theological opinion for
example Muslims May argue Christ was
born therefore Christ is a man we could
turn this enem into a syllogism that is
Christ was born one who was born as a
man therefore Christ is a man but at the
end of the day we do not deny that
Christ is a man so we can simply point
to this fact and move on as a brief tip
it is important to remember that that
which is defined and taught by the
church consists ultimately in judgments
for when we Ascent into the truth of
something we are assenting to a judgment
which can be stated in a proposition
now there are likely thousands if not
more judgments which are taught by the
Catholic church at a number of different
levels of authority throughout the
history of the church many theologians
sought to collect classify explain prove
and defend these propositions in a
systematic manner the best example of
this in English is called the sac
theologia suuma written by a number of
Jesuits in the 1950s and can be very
helpful for researching such questions
of whether something has been taught or
not anyways now on step three let's say
that after turning your opponent's
argument into a syllogism you have found
that their conclusion is something truly
which is contrary to
Catholicism here we seek to look at the
form of the argument which is made up of
the quote mood and quote figure of the
syllogism I will keep this as simple as
possible but this will get a little
complicated basically there are four
types of proposition first the universal
positive which is usually given the
letter A an example of this is all men
so Universal are rational positive then
the second one is the universal negative
which is usually given the letter e for
example no men are plants third the
particular positive which is usually
given the letter i for example some men
are Catholic then the particular
negative which is usually given the
letter O for example some men are not
American these types of propositions can
interact with one another in order to
draw forth conclusions some ways in a
valid Manner and other ways in an
invalid manner thus the syllogism that
every body is a substance Universal
positive every man is a body Universal
positive therefore every man is a
substance Universal positive here the
major premise the minor premise the
conclusion are all Universal positive so
this is referred to as a a AA syllogism
because if you remember from above
Universal positives are given the letter
A or to give another example we can have
the syllogism that no man is a plant
every man is an animal therefore no man
is a plant
the major premise in conclusion are
universally negative and the minor
premise is universally positive so this
is referred to as an eae syllogism this
is called the mood of the syllogism this
treats the placement of the propositions
in a syllogism by its quantity Universal
or particular and its quality positive
or negative so anytime you have the mood
of a syllogism this is going to be
referenced by three letters either a e i
or o but here things get tricky for
there are a number of different ways to
order the terms of the syllogism as well
not only the
premises from the placement of the
middle term in the syllogism we can
deduce four different figures first we
have what is called first figure
syllogisms this is the most common type
of syllogism out there where the middle
term is the subject in the major premise
and the predicate in the minor premise
thus in the above example we have no
animal is a plant every man is an animal
therefore no man is a plant we see that
the middle term animal is the subject in
the major premise and the predicate in
the minor premise allowing for a nice
Cascade of the major and minor terms
into the
conclusion second we have what is called
the second figure syllogism in this the
middle term is the predicate in both no
bitter man has peace but every saint has
peace therefore no saint is a bitter man
we see peace is the predicate both in
bitter man has no bitter man has peace
and it's also the predicate in every
saint has peace
third we have what is called the third
figure syllogism in this the middle term
is the subject in both no animal is
Incorruptible but every animal is a
living being therefore some living being
is not Incorruptible you see animal and
no animal is Incorruptible as a subject
an animal in every animal is a living
being is the subject fourth we have
What's called the fourth figure this is
also called the indirect first figure in
this we switch around the placement of
the middle term from the first figure
the middle term is the predicate in the
major premise and the subject in the
minor premise All Saints are Godly men
no Godly men are evil men therefore no
evil men are Saints we see that Godly
men is the predicate in the major
premise and it's the subject in the
minor premise each one of these figures
have a number of moods that are valid
and a number that are invalid for
example if we tried to give the
following mood for the first figure
syllogism it would be invalid if you
remember mood is just those three
letters that we talked about some men
are Bankers some men are Kings therefore
some kings are Bankers in this case it
is perfectly possible that some men that
are bankers and the some men that are
Kings are different groups of men out of
the 64 possible combinations of moods
and figures only 19 come out as being
valid if you remember a equals Universal
positive E equals Universal negative I
equals particular positive and O equals
particular negative so the first group
has four possible the second has four as
well the third has six possible and the
fourth or the indirect first has five
possible there's a process of
elimination that goes into deducing
these 19 possible moods but it is too
long for this video so after you've
turned it into a syllogism and
discovered that its conclusion is indeed
against Catholicism try to see if their
syllogism is in a proper mood which
obviously you're going to look at which
figure it is in and then check it
against the possible moods that are
listed above for example if someone were
to argue like this some men are fallible
all the gospel writers are men therefore
all the gospel writers are fallible they
would be using an i AA syllogism in the
first figure this is a completely
invalid manner of reasoning now to step
four this is the final step here we have
placed our argument into a syllogism
decided on whether the conclusion is
even worth refuting and looked at the
form of the argument now we need to eval
valuate the matter of the propositions
here we have three moves we can make
first affirm second deny third
distinguish let's say someone argues
like this against us no person who dies
is God but Jesus is a person who dies
therefore Jesus is not God this is an
eio syllogism in the first figure which
is one of the valid forms so it is solid
in its form further to say that Jesus is
not God is a matter of Catholic teaching
in interacting with this syllogism we
can do three things first we could
concede the major and minor premise at
this point we would be conceding the
falsehood of Catholicism or if the major
and minor premise are correct and the
form is valid then the conclusion
necessarily follows second we could
affirm one of the premises and deny the
other or we could just deny both third
we could distinguish it is a rule of
syllogisms that they must have only
three terms if they have four terms then
you suffer from the fallacy of
equivocation for example if you said all
rational animals are men no man is a
woman therefore no woman is a rational
animal clearly while the conclusion may
be correct man is being used in an
equivocal sense in the major and the
minor premises of the term the way to
reply to this is by distinguishing the
senses of the term in the major premise
and then contrad distinguishing the
minor premise showing that they are used
in two different senses all rational
animals are men I distinguish all
rational animals are men in the sense of
human being conceited all rational
animals are men in the sense of male
denied then we would treat the minor
premise no man is a woman I conture
distinguish no human being is a woman
denied no male is a woman conceited thus
we see that the terms are used
equivocally and contrad distinguish
further sometimes we don't contrad
distinguish but only distinguish one of
the premises and then concede the other
distinguishing the conclusion as well we
can do either of these in the syllogism
we are facing no person who dies is God
but Jesus is a person who dies therefore
Jesus Is God first we could contrad
distinguish this which is the better
option we would say no person who dies
is God I distinguish no person according
to his divinity I concede according to
every nature that terminates in his
personhood I deny Jesus is a person who
dies I contrad distinguish a person who
dies according to his divinity I deny a
person who dies according to a nature
that terminates in his personhood I
concede then from this you could simply
deny the conclusion or on the other hand
you can distinguish either the major or
the minor term in the major or the minor premise
premise
and then concede the conclusion in this distinguished
distinguished
sense while this is a bit of an awkward
way of speaking I would concede the
major premise and then distinguish the
minor saying Jesus is a person who dies
I distinguish a person who dies
according to his divinity denied
according to his Humanity conceited then
we import this distinction in the
conclusion distinguishing it likewise
Jesus is not God according to his
Humanity conceited according to Divinity
denied this of course is an awkward way
of speaking since God is usually spoken
of personally it is important important
to note that there is also a practice
called subd distinguishing where your
distinction needs another distinction
I'll pass on this since most state it as
an ordinary distinction but if needed it
exists lastly as mentioned earlier one
can certain to reject one or both of the
premises which will lead to a rejection
of the conclusion for example if someone
said all true Miracles are signs of the
truth but the Holy Fire is a true
Miracle therefore the Holy Fire is a
sign of the truth in this case there are
two ways one could go about this either
first one could distinguish the usage of
sign of Truth since it is ambiguous as
I've spoken about in other places or two
one can simply deny the minor premise at
this point one can either first bring
forward your argument against the
premise or second ask for evidence of
the minor premise than attacking this
new argument if one is given thus I
would say that I concede the major
premise I deny the minor premise
therefore I deny the conclusion and then
after denying the minor premise I could
give my own evidence for why I think
this is false
to give a little summary of the whole
video there are four steps of destroying
incorrect arguments first you need to
turn the argument into a syllogism no
matter the form that it's put in second
you need to investigate whether the
conclusion is contrary to your position
third you need to investigate whether
the figure and the mood of the syllogism
is correct using the lists given above
and then last either deny one or both of
the premises and thus you can deny the
conclusion or you can contrad
distinguish both premises showing
equivocation and then from this deny the
conclusion or you can distinguish one of
the premises and then concede the other
and then from this you will also
distinguish the conclusion by the way if
you want a little guide on this my
friends at profit.io have a logic poster
which is pretty cool if you enjoyed this
make sure to like make sure to share
make sure to subscribe and if you really
really like this make sure to become a
patron a patreon.com toist or give a
onetime donation at Chris wagner.com
donate as always God bless
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Chrome Extension