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.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

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

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

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.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…