Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Critical Thinking #10: Post Hoc Fallacy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 бер 2018
- → brilliant.org/c...
The critical thinking miniseries was made possible by our viewers and listeners. To support more of this type of work, become a member or Patron at www.davidpakman... and / davidpakmanshow
-Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
-Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
-Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
-Support when you buy cryptocurrency: www.davidpakman...
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-Follow David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-Follow us on Steemit: steemit.com/@d...
-Discuss This on Reddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: www.youtube.com...
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5A7hSaoRv0g/mqdefault.jpg)
Also, remember that correlation does not equal causation. This is also one of the first things you learn in statistics.
Another way to put this: subsequence does not always mean consequence. In fact, a related fallacy I hope he covers is the fallacy that correlation must imply causation.
Excellent Work MR Pakman.
I used to think that correlation implied causation, then I took a course on statistics and logic, now I realize that this is not true. So the course helped? I'm not sure....
Post-hocking: Every religious ritual ever devised. Huh, I never would've guessed there was a well established term for that...
What are some typical examples of the "post hoc fallacy" in the realm of political debate?
Here's one. The common misconception that Obamacare caused the insurance premiums to go up. Just because the latter happened doesn't mean that the former caused it. In fact, there was a Forbes article about this that basically said, no, the ACA did NOT cause insurance premiums to rise.
+pinochet pilot #666
More accurately, giving Trump credit for things that go right just because it happened while he was there. Of course this is exacerbated by the fact that Trump takes credit for things he had nothing to do with. For example, I do not BLAME Trump for the fact that the Carrier jobs in Indiana that he promised/claimed to save went to Mexico anyway, because I knew they would. But thanks to big subsidies, a few people kept their lobs longer than they might have. Or the stock market! Markets were up around the world in late 2016 coinciding with (in some cases) Trump's election. But he did nothing to cause that, yet is still given credit for it. He took credit for the Chinese now accepting beef imports from the USA, but that was negotiated in 2014-15 by Obama's people! Trump supporters credit him with saving jobs at Ford because they did not build a new plant in Mexico - but Ford released documents showing that they had decided in late 2015 not to build the plant because demand for the sub-compacts it was supposed to build was down. Heck, he even gets credit for things that DID NOT HAPPEN! Take the Saudi arms deal - originally negotiated by Obama, and then put on hold due to A) Saudi attacks on Libya, and B) the fact that due to low oil prices they were behind on their payments for the 2012 arms deal! No contracts issued, not even solid pricing agreed, not one bit of hardware mae for or sold to them, yet Trump got credit for a $100 billion arms deal that has not happened. He gets credit for improved job growth - but it was higher in 2016!
pinochet pilot #666 or saying that any growth in the economy is due to trump without providing a causal link.
Pat Doyle How does this make you feel?
;)
I'm sorry I absolutely love your rant!
They bought back their own stock, and there were few in the way of workers bonuses, and still a LOT of layoffs, with Walmart closing a large number of stores, ToysRus folding, and what bonuses did workers get? Thousand dollar bonuses? Those were MAXIMUM bonuses, for those who worked there 20 years. Most bonuses were nowhere near the maximum, they were on the scale of dozens of dollars if any at all. And that is sucked up by increases in healthcare costs because Trump is gutting Obamacare.
So, basically, the tax cuts did NOT go to jobs, they went to enriching the executives.
The difference between causation, correlation, and coincidence.
Is a filibuster a logical fallacy? Is it passive aggressiveness?
Hoc is pronounced hoak. Not as in hocking a loogey.
By the way, our brains are evolved to associate and predict likelihoods, and are forever subject to post-hoc heuristic. Life for a brained animal, of which we are merely one of many, is the process through which errors are corrected. That is the nature of a brain's function - a Bayesian, if you will, predictive organ.
It's pronounced that way in Latin. We pronounce it differently in english.
the thumbs down @ autism thoooo.....yike
i noticed that too
I had to pause it at Cause B, because I was laughing at how much it sounded like COSBY.
I feel as though more needs to be said. Every scientific theory starts with an inkling, and often dots are connected that many miss (or it's a stretch for most to believe) but then theories are investigated for probability, accuracy and reproduction. Is the fallacy stopping at the inkling and just assuming the theory is right? or is the whole process a fallacy because you start with the inkling? I just feel like the examples in this video and in the comments are missing something very important. Post hoc fallacies seem to be the first step of every scientific discovery. People who believe this type of fallacy are just on their first step of discovering the truth. Hypothetically, someone who believed the vaccine thing could test all the vaccines in the world and discover what the vaccines were actually doing. Someone who believed that chickens bring the sun might kill all chickens to find that chickens had nothing to do with the sun. It may be a fallacy to stop at the first step, but i feel as though it is a very necessary part of discovering truths. Everybody makes mistakes. I fear everybody is so willing to shut another person down because they might be on this first step, and then the truth will never be revealed. This of course depends on the person making the journey and if they are even willing to change their minds.
T. Meyer yeah i get that. all im saying is that this is often the first step in any theory. so as much as people hate it, it is a very important thing that we do on the road to discovery.
I, at least, think it's important to say it. Just because you do not know why A might cause B doesn't mean you shouldn't investigate if A actually causes B. Many would shut others down before that is done. That's why it must be said. Take for instance the investigation into Trump and Russia. The journey is still progressing, yet everybody wants it to go away.
What you're saying is important when you're thinking about the process of discovery. Fallacies typically belong to the domain of justification.
That argument can lend itself to the CO2 causing global warming... All because its noted in sample cores, from which exact dates cannot be defined. Just because there's CO2 captured in the samples, doesn't mean that CO2 caused the ice, came before and thus created climate chaos. However we do know that lack of sunspots decreases the earth's albedo, increases volcanism, decreases earth's magnetic shielding, thus allowing more cosmic rays to heat up said earth, even during times of low CO2.. The creation of more clouds from cosmic rays and heating up of upper atmosphere, can heat the poles significantly, but not over 0 deg C. releasing fresh water which is less dense, and disrupting the ocean circulation patterns. More rain, snow, freezing temps in uncommon areas, decreases the CO2, which we've seen in data, instead of increasing.
And one arguing that a healthy,, bright child cannot suffer autism and other maladies shortly after vaccinations, even though it IS included in the medical literature is in themselves spreading fallacies.
CO2 traps heat from the sun causing warming, this function can be observed in a controlled environment, the exact mechanism is understood, and the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere has increased. It is not a post hoc fallacy to say that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet, it is a plain observation of fact.
If you're going to summarise scientific claims (however dubious they may be) please summarise them correctly!
Actually salty, vaccines prevent a number of illnesses that are known to cause autism, and given that no clear link between vaccination and autism can be established by global research I think it is safe to assume that correlation is being confused with causation.
Then again, the US has a history of unethical human experimentation and covert eugenics, and is somewhat well known for allowing it's industries to ignore regulations, so I would question the safety of all American medicine. In fact, I would question the safety of all things American, you commonly have lead in your tap water.
I believe in "safe" vaccines T Meyer.. not ones that are filled with undue extra substances that cause harm. As a child from my own records, I suffered a great reaction from a vaccine that produce neurological damage in one whole side. Thankfully, it abated, but not before a psychologist deemed me likely to be of lower intelligence range. If he were living today, I'd love to smack him upside the back of the head with my 3.95 college GPA and master's degree. Years later, unbeknownst of this prior medical history, I was talked into having another vaccine that nearly put me into the hospital. The place where I had the vaccine couldn't believe it.. Said it must be "something else" as this video attempts to suggest, but it was the very same reactions listed for 2% of the population. The nurse said it was "rare", in her attempts to dismiss it.. I repeated, rare but not negligible..
Climate change denier? No.. I actually have researched ancient climatology.. read a vast number of said papers and skewed graphs/charts on present years along with the "corrected" model data... that doesn't include real data taken by the instruments themselves, merely human estimates of the data. Even the famously quoted 97% of scientists support global warming (then changed to climate change) is skewed. The actual survey of scientists data is skewed, with the vast number of scientists who answered that there was not enough data at the time, those numbers were included in support of global warming 97 percentile. I think if you actually looked at climate data from past centuries and actually recorded data from this century and the 20th, you'll find a different picture. .04% of CO@ in the atmosphere does not follow the climate history of earth's major swings in climate change. But volcanism, sunspot, axial tilt, changes in earth's magnetism, cosmic ray bombardment during lulls in sunspot activity, does.
You would be an actual credible newsperson if you actually followed your own advice and avoided things like strawmanning and ad hom attacks but I know you won't. Lying liars will continue lying.
Woodcutta Do you have proof of this?
Watch any of his videos including his most recent where he treats one of his callers horribly.
Is a filibuster a logical fallacy? Is it passive- aggressiveness?