Knowing the label for certain arguments helped me with identifying it in my own mind when I heard or read claims. Circular reasoning, No True Scottsman, False Dichotomy, Moving the Goal Posts, Special Pleading, Ad Homiinem, Appeal to Authority/Tradition, etc. I wanted to excercise my critical thinking skills & learn to better spot bs when not familiar with a subject. Idk all the latin names or types of formal logical falacies, but knowing a handful of the main ones made me more attentive to the content of a claim regardless of how intellectually or authoritatively it was presented (big words, complex language, obscure references, etc) It's help me weed out pseudoscience & pseudohistory channels/content from my social media. And helped me better analyze my own beliefs & biases.
Yeah but he's very selective about what he's logical about. Bring up transgenderism, abortion or any number of political issues, and his logic flies out the window.
Good advice. I too have tried to learn lists of logical fallacies. I would offer that there is value in looking up logical fallacies, but not to memorize them. The value is in seeing many examples of these fallacies, which may help you recognize them. Many times I see or hear people make fallacies that I would not recognize if I hadn't been exposed to many fallacies.
I found very interesting book series for kids called "Fallacy detective" where key fallacies are presented in simplified way. Maybe this would be useful to someone.
Good stuff Matt. Regarding content versus structure of an arguement. I think the bigger inconsistency between atheist and theists isn't whether they believe in a God or not, but why they believe in a God, or not. Theist have a bad structure (the why) that allows them to adopt bad content.
@@SapientCephalopod My apologies for not being clear enough: I meant your stated position (which some theists share - some words switched places for reversing the roles, of course).
Matt, you are the same age as my parents. They are not even religious or marginal individuals. I respect your thirst for the truth, that is, I trust you more than my parents. I learned useful things from you that I need. Thank you.
I remember having a discussion with a friend who made a claim about something regarding some events that happened in our area. I told him to prove it as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. He refused because he said "burden of proof" is only something used in court. In hindsight, I should have simply just said, "provide proof".
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT Simple Examples Should Come First P1) If the power is off, then the light won’t come on. P2) The light won’t come on. C) Therefore, the power is off? Well, what if it’s just that the bulb is bad? Bzzzrk! Structure Should Be Taught Second If A, then B B Therefore A
You can add categories for quantitative and probabilistic fallacies too, alongside logical fallacies. The McNamara fallacy is a good example of a quantitative fallacy. Using negation can be tricky. Matt Slick got taken to task for that, I seem to recall, when he tried to use not-God in his syllogism. The "alive or not alive" can get weighty, which leads into being specific about the meanings of terms you use in your arguments. We all get this a lot when we lay out what we mean by "atheist" only to be told by a believer something that uses a different definition. Thus, we also have to analyse arguments for the description for terms that they lay out, and engage with the argument on its own terms, even if we don't like it. This does mean there might be an equivocation or conflation further down the line where the proponent tries to switch between definitions without you noticing.
Usually, in software development, programs with syntax errors do not compile, whereas a bug is when the program runs but does not produce the expected output.
Are you telling us that Matt committed a "presentation" (argument) from ignorance? xD His parallel was sound, but not valid :D Funny, I am not. Valid, I ham. Burger, I am. Giving up on this comment, I have.
Syntax error is a bug of coding. Your software has bugs that made you make the syntax error. Otherwise we would never have a syntax error. Everything would run perfectly. I'm being dumb.
The terms I've heard for this divide is syntax error vs logic error. Still, those don't cover the whole spectrum of errors. And in any case, I don't think it makes for a very successful analogy. I wouldn't advise anyone to use it for discussing logical arguments.
@@abigfavor You just confirmed the OP who clearly stated the difference between a bug (The program had no error in it's code, only in it's content) and a programming error (The program won't even compile due to an error in it's code, and therefore can never even run, until the error is corrected, and the program can be compiled). The OP is correct in that either Matt used the wrong word, or just felt the need to clarify it, because the two are very often mixed up. Either way a bug and a programming error are two different things, and their names are not interchangeable by definition, and you calling both "Bug" when only one is, makes YOU the one who is incorrect in saying they are two different versions of the same thing when they are not! Great video to commit logical fallacies to in the comments! Smart move (not)!
In an early class for computer programming, mostly long forgotten, we were told about the one-to-many-many-to-one "issue". In database construction, I think it was(?). While I will not attempt to explain it, it does occationally happens that I reflect on that lesson when presented with statements. Does the "truth value" change when I consider this as an individual, and as a part of humanity.
I've noticed a new style in the way the ads insert themselves, they dim and reduce volume of the video for a second, then play the ad, then when the video comes back it's rewound by a couple of seconds so you hear a bit of it again. I find this makes the ad harder to ignore, which may be both the intended effect and a worse experience for me.
We were talking about fallacies in my philosophy class back in college and someone brought up a controversial topic that everyone was very sensitive about. The entire class went from being rational and calm to emotionally illogical and angry claiming that fallacies don't apply to such topics, because they considered their emotions to be facts...... oyy 😆
Matt, I have been watching you for a long time. The older I get, the more I realize people can't be 100% about everything all the time. Especially when feelings become involved. Therefore, people fall into traps, cults of all flavors including some extreme thinking.
I recently found myself about to accuse someone of using a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy but stopped myself when it didn't seem logically precise enough. I think we can indeed fall into lazy traps of thinking too strictly in terms of named fallacies and failing to assess whether our actual logic is sound.
@@derwolf7810 (after an aborted attempt) I must tell you it is both complicated and long and I don't recall the precise sequence of the exchange now. I just felt like I had ben called the No True Scotsman when I personally knew I was being factual. I may have been arguing from personal attestation which is unfair by itself. I was 100% right but hadn't met my public burden of proof.
Special pleading is actually an interesting example, because when that fallacy is used, it's not just that the truth of the conclusion doesn't follow from the truth of the premises. It goes beyond that, and points out that this is actually an argument where the Falsehood of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises. For example, let's take an argument that I heard from a theist recently: Only some people believe "minimizing harm and maximizing pleasure" is a good moral standard, therefore it should be considered purely subjective, and be rejected. By process of elimination, this means that you can only get objective morals from God. When breaking this argument apart into its premises (and ignoring the false dichotomy, as it won't be relevant for what I'm about to do), you get: 1. A moral standard should be rejected as subjective if not everyone agrees with it. 2. Some people, but not everyone, thinks you should "minimize harm and maximize pleasure" 3. Therefore, Divine Command Theory is objective and true. This is special pleading because it ignores that premises 1. and 2. imply that Divine Command Theory is subjective and should be rejected.
You have that 100% backward. That is a secuarlist view you completely debunked why a secularist view is 100% special pleading. That is not a christian ethics view.
@@DebateColloseum "a secularist view is special peading" I don't affirm the premises of the fallacious argument, so I don't see how that would be an example of special pleading from that side. To clarify what I do or do not affirm: I agree that if not everyone agrees with a moral imperative, then it's a stretch to call it objective, and it makes more sense to call it subjective. I do not agree that any moral imperative must be dismissed on the basis of being subjective. "That is not a christian ethics view" You're not being clear about what "That" is supposed to be, but the fallacious argument I presented is a view of ethics that I have heard from many different Christian apologists. If you have a problem with that, you're free to distance yourself from their points, but don't blame me for criticizing them.
@@kappasphere Your initial argument "Minimizing Harm and Maximizing Pleasure" is not a theist or Christian ethical value. That is a secularist value. In fact, in the Christian worldview that statement is demonic. It has nothing to do with theism or Christian ethics at all. Just because not everyone agrees doesn't make it objective. Objective truths don't change because people don't agree with them. That is what makes them objective. If they did that would make them subjective and we have seen the result of subjective morality. It has created some of the worst travesties in human history.
@@DebateColloseum Thanks for clarifying what you were talking about. Yes, "Minimizing harm and maximizing pleasure" is not the Christian view, and in fact had been presented as the competitor of the Christian view by the original argument. The point is that the argument that was used to rule out this competitor, the argument being that not everyone agrees with it, equally applies to the Christian view, and so it is special pleading to both use the argument and promote the Christian view, as the argument also rules out the Christian view. "Objective truths don't change because people don't agree with them." If literally everyone agrees on something that would otherwise be subjective, that can be called "intersubjective", and also is how many people define "objective". But I can see why someone would find it important to make a distinction.
@@kappasphere To define objective morality is this. It is universal that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of culture or opinion. Subjective morality and intersubjective moral standards allow for corruption and other horrific ideas and customs to form. Subjective morality is nothing more than preferences of your opinion. YOu would then have to demonstrate how your preferences are better than mine. Not only that since morality is just based on preferences then what happens if i reject your preferences to mine?
the first time I said to my deeply religious mother that was an argument from ignorance, she retorted, "I am not ignorant" At that moment I knew it was no use arguing fallacies with her and she did not understand what I meant.
5:16 Yeah, I don't like how "ignorant" somehow became synonymous with "stupid." If I say it, I'm simply saying they don't know what they are talking about. Everyone is ignorant of/about something, probably most things. But yeah, I like knowing the name of the fallacy, but knowing if what is being said doesn't add up is better. The variable thing you mentioned reminds me of Discrete Mathematics. Typically "If P, then Q"
Hey guys. Does anyone have any book recommendations that breaks these things down for review? Things like logical fallacies, syllogisms, premises etc. thanks!
Cyanid. I made a women incredulous when I presented a long list during a conversation about food and chemicals. She looked at the list and was appalled. Even more so when I said that all those items, including cyanid, was chemicals she would eat every time she ate a natural grown apple from her own apple tree.
You say in a non-sequiteur argument the conclusion doesn't *necessarily* follow. I'd say it doesn't *ever* follow - it still may be right or wrong, but that has nothing to do with following.
I once got a shot for back pain. I got home and ate a whole box of Cheeze-Its, and my hunger stayed the same. I wanted more, but I thought, "Something is wrong," so I just forced myself to stop eating because I realized it was probably the shot, not natural hunger.
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT Simple Examples Should Come First P1) If I drop the egg, then it will break. P2) The egg is broken. C) Therefore, I dropped it? No, there are many ways to break an egg. Structure Should Be Taught Second If A, then B B Therefore A
It is fascinating to me how someone so adept at philosophy and who demonstrates such a keen understanding of logical syllogisms and fallacies can continue to use something like the Gumball Analogy, which is riddled with problems, as I've explained at-length in a video on my channel. I suppose it just goes to show that we _all_ have our biases and cognitive blind spots.
One thing I hate about watching your videos, the line, Forrests Videos, Jimmys Podcast (yes Jimmy got/Has a podcast) etc. is that youtube begins to give me recommendations for "the other side". And for some reason I thought, f... It, let us see what this is. And in the comments, so many people was saying that it was a God given miracle/Devine intervention, that saved Trump from the "schooters"... These people seriously believe, that God would use it's time, to save this orange Monkey, instead of saving good people. Like perhaps stop a r..eist, or a car driven by a drunk driver, who cares not about others, that is about to hit another car, where the people in that car, is a family. And then the family dies, but the drunk driver survives.... "But God works in mysterious ways" 🤦🏼 What is one to do, against such stupidity? I get why youtube is trying to give me more perspectives, and stop me from living in my own info bubble, but it scares me so much, that these people are out there, and they can Vote😬
Watching “flat earthers” videos is just a waste of time. I want to stay in my bubble of facts, science and reasons. Just by watching the news I am already exposed to more of the unhinged cultists than I need for my sanity. Do your mental health a favor: use the “not interested” and “don’t recommend this channel” UA-cam options to block trash showing up in your feed. If you are worried and want to do something volunteer for a campaign or join an activist group. You’ll meet likeminded people, have fun and make a difference. 👍
Yeah, I rarely click on that stuff. It isn't because I want to be in a bubble though, it is because they almost never have anything intelligent or interesting to say. It is almost always them presenting new arguments.. that are exactly the same thing they've been saying for decades.
@@Gandhi_Physique If you already assume they have nothing of importance to say, then you are the one, by definition, being close minded. You can be right and still be in an echo chamber...
@@fomori2 Well, if I'm right then it doesn't really matter if I'm in an echo chamber. And, my assumption is almost never wrong. What progress have theists made in the last decade, or even last 100 years with their lackluster arguments? The only way I hear anything interesting at all is through atheist talk shows, and even then it is usually just a headache. 100% of the videos I have clicked that prove a god have been rehashed arguments that I've already heard. Upwards of 95% of theists on talk shows do the same thing. It is incredibly lame, and somehow even less interesting than flat earthers. Conspiracy theorists and theists have a lot in common tbh. Also, it is possible for both sides to be close minded simultaneously.
New atheist here. Is there a book you would recommend where I can learn more about the logical structure of arguments and different fallacies? (I know you said I don't need to the labels, just want to ready more about it).
Sounds like fallacy spotting is like Game calling. Familiarity with Byrne's PAC/Games is nesisary to spot a Game, let alone call it out. No doubt a tome of girth could be written with new Game titles beyond such originals as 'Why don't you...yes, but.' and my personal favourite ' I've got you now you SOB!" 😆
@Matt Dillahunty (et al): There's a Very Good, Very Detailed video on UA-cam called "Every Logical Fallacy Explained In 11 Minutes" by The Paint Explainer: It explains the most commonly used fallacies I hear in daily conversations I have with the wide variety of individuals I enter into an interlocutory debates with. Check it out if you haven't seen it yet and let me know what you think. I'd post the link right here but UA-cam won't allow such juvenile behavior lol :-)
Hablo desde la prisión de Wandsworth en Londres. Quiero un trabajo en la prisión y este poema de amor es mi carta de presentación. Un día pasa y otro llega y ateos, cristianos y demás grupos religiosos continúan negándose a pedir que se pruebe el Corán fue memorizado. Estoy hablando de realidad innegable que está pasando delante de tus propios ojos, aquí y ahora. Estoy hablando de una verdad que es injustificable, ¿y si no cómo se justifica que mientras niños inocentes y vulnerables mueren en guerras ateos, cristianos y demás se niegen a pedir que el Corán fue memorizado?. ¿Por qué se niegan, cual son las consecuencias de negarse a pedir que se pruebe el Corán fue memorizado?. ¡Atento, que las malas intenciones se esconden!, ¡atento que te quieren ignorante para hacerte daño!. La verdad que te hace libre es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es "el amigo imaginario que vive en el cielo y hace milagros a cambio de rezos y vivir de rodillas" y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Dios existe porque lógicamente es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin el creador o infinitud, y si no me crees o entiendes puedes leer a Spinoza. Soy un psicólogo y persona racional y la verdad que puedes comprobar por ti mismo es el ateísmo y la religión te están costando tu salud mental y economía. Para superar una censura injusta la información que se prohibe tiene que ser compartida para que se conozca. ¿Mentirías a tus niños inocentes y vulnerables? Eres testigo e infinitamente importante. Gracias.
Hey Matt, why is it a problem to not have any grounds for a truth claim? If I understood you correctly it would be a fallacy and I would have no good reason to believe the truth claim. Correct? Then help me out here, if there is no God and everything is matter and energy. Do we have any good reason to believe anything?
Why are you misrepresenting what he's said about the existence of a god? When has Dillahunty ever claimed a god doesn't exist? Why can't you religious supstitionists ever be honest?
EDIT: HE WAS JUST A TROLL... Hey! That is a great example of a non-sequitur! The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. "Do we have any good reason to believe in anything?" Is in itself a good question, but irrelevant to A) there being a god or not; and B) everything is matter and energy. Why? Because it is still possible to be matter and energy AND a god existing.
@EdwinReyes10 ehr, no, that what you said, "Do we have any reason to believe anything?" Is independent of there being a god. A god could exist and yet you could still have no good reason to believe anything.
@@wax99 ok so here’s what I think are the implications If there is no god then what we call “reason” is not actually reason for it came from non reason. Giving us no good reason to believe in anything. If there is a god then reason came from reason given us good reason to believe in reason. Giving us the preconditions of intelligibility
When ever I hear the word reductio ad absurdum, I am always triggered to think of that idiot caller Xeno who thinks Matt is a narcissist, and was himself a narcissist and ridiculous
@@boogit9979 just look up Xeno AXP and find some of his call to TH and AXP, with different hosts there's probably 8-10 of his nonsensical calls, but his justification for believing in god he always would say a reductio ad absurdum while not understanding what that was, a call with Kenneth and JMike particularly, you'll also notice his calls get progressively shorter as the host realize it is the same bullshit as previous calls and just hang up
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT Simple Examples Should Come First P1) If Jesus rose from the dead, then the tomb will be empty. P2) The tomb is empty. C) Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead? Yeah, no. There are countless reasons for why the tomb was empty. Structure Should Be Taught Second If A, then B B Therefore A
This one introduces the idea of accepting a premise for the sake of the argument to see if the conclusion would follow. Sometimes, it's tempting to deny the premise immediately when it is more fruitful to follow the argument and show it doesn't work.
one special case where invalid argument means that god doesnt exist, when god was going to be true because of the argument. on the other hand a valid and good argument cant prove a god into existence. he will remain as real as man created him. maybe that shoild have been the creation story.
Poor Mat Dillahunty, he ran away from spirituality, now he's super glued forever with ZUES, lol. He was never so busy in his brief taste of religious consciousness as now. ZEUS in the am & pm and day dreamin. lol. Wanted to run away from you, but now... stuck on you, ZEUS. lol
Poor timkhan2338. Matt Dillahunty was a devout Christian until mid-life, and abandoned the faith after a long personal effort to discover and demonstrate its truth. He was raised as a Southern Baptist, and was expected by everyone around him to become a successful preacher, but he joined the Navy instead. That was his "brief taste of religious consciousness." Your barely literate comment demonstrates that YOUR religious consciousness is as shallow and empty-headed as they come. The fool in his foolishness brays insults at the wise.
Well he just committed a circular argument fallacy right in the first minute. Just because I layout a ton of fallacious arguments doesn't make the conclusion wrong simply because i say so. A fallacy on its face is this " A fallacious argument as one that either is deductively invalid or is inductively very weak or contains an unjustified premise or that ignores relevant evidence that is available." This definition by itself proves him wrong. The entire software thing is wrong. You 100% can compile code with bugs in it. You simply won't get the result you are expecting. What you can't compile is code that as syntax errors. This means that the structural issue in the code is missing something. Typically there is a semi-colon somewhere that you forgot about. I have thought about this for a while. The question of Does God exist is a bit of a trap question. IE Dillahunty will ask someone to prove the existence of God. While the person can no more prove God exists than Dillahunty can show he doesn't. This is more of a theological question. We are dealing with more of beliefs of people. Statements of belief are just that statements of belief.
If you(I) lay out a fallacious argument, you can't say you're(I'm) wrong. That's correct. That a fallacy fallacy. He just explained that. The point is if you have a fallacious argument, you can not rationally reach your conclusion. Sure, you can reach a correct answer from bad reasons. That doesn't warrant the reasons for the answer. I don't see how it's circular.
@@boogit9979 He said it in the first minute. You also have to look at the definition of a fallacy. If you lay out a line of fallacious arguments then yeah your conclusion is going to be wrong. Why? because the structure used for the conclusion is wrong. See the definition To use his example correctly though. A fallacy is a structural flaw in an argument. It doesn't compile. It won't compile. You can try and make it compile but it just won't work. That is different than a bug in your argument. A flawed argument can reach a right conclusion. That is the distinction.
@@TheLightlock No they can't. A fallacy is (using his own example based on the definition of the word) a syntax error in an argument. Just because you don't like that doesn't change facts. There is a difference between a fallacious argument and a bad argument, or an argument that has a bug in it. Even with a bug in the program it will run and work. It might even function perfectly fine and work properly. it might use more resources but it still can produce a correct result. A syntax error will never work. it won't even compile. Please go back and re-read the definition of a fallacious argument. There is a delineation between a fallacious argument and a bad or poorly worded argument.
Knowing the label for certain arguments helped me with identifying it in my own mind when I heard or read claims. Circular reasoning, No True Scottsman, False Dichotomy, Moving the Goal Posts, Special Pleading, Ad Homiinem, Appeal to Authority/Tradition, etc. I wanted to excercise my critical thinking skills & learn to better spot bs when not familiar with a subject. Idk all the latin names or types of formal logical falacies, but knowing a handful of the main ones made me more attentive to the content of a claim regardless of how intellectually or authoritatively it was presented (big words, complex language, obscure references, etc) It's help me weed out pseudoscience & pseudohistory channels/content from my social media. And helped me better analyze my own beliefs & biases.
Matt is the best teacher of logic and epistemology I've ever heard. He really knows his stuff! Thank you Matt for all you do!
the guy who no epistemic standard, right
@@MadebyJimbobthat’s a stupid lie.
@@MadebyJimbob The guy with no comprehension standard...
@@MadebyJimbob Huh? what are you trying to say?
Yeah but he's very selective about what he's logical about. Bring up transgenderism, abortion or any number of political issues, and his logic flies out the window.
True knowledge breaks everything! Thanks, Matt!
I've got nothing particularly useful to add, so I'll just say: Thanks, Matt! I find these presentations quite useful.
Good advice. I too have tried to learn lists of logical fallacies.
I would offer that there is value in looking up logical fallacies, but not to memorize them. The value is in seeing many examples of these fallacies, which may help you recognize them.
Many times I see or hear people make fallacies that I would not recognize if I hadn't been exposed to many fallacies.
In general, memorizing is just a substitute for learning. Try to _understand_ things instead.
Yeah, I can't name most of the fallacies, but I think I am decent at seeing if reasoning is fallacious.
I found very interesting book series for kids called "Fallacy detective" where key fallacies are presented in simplified way.
Maybe this would be useful to someone.
Good stuff Matt. Regarding content versus structure of an arguement.
I think the bigger inconsistency between atheist and theists isn't whether they believe in a God or not, but why they believe in a God, or not. Theist have a bad structure (the why) that allows them to adopt bad content.
I suspect, that position was acquired by some sort of bias (observer bias, attribution bias, confirmation bias, ...).
@@derwolf7810 I don't suspect anything. I know exactly why they have bad epistemology. INDOCTRINATION!
@@SapientCephalopod My apologies for not being clear enough:
I meant your stated position (which some theists share - some words switched places for reversing the roles, of course).
Matt, you are the same age as my parents. They are not even religious or marginal individuals. I respect your thirst for the truth, that is, I trust you more than my parents. I learned useful things from you that I need. Thank you.
If your parents know what a woman is, then i would trust your parents more.
@@horndon100 Then do it, it's up to you.
If only politicians had an understanding of logical fallacies and did their best to call them out.
Thanks Matt, I wished you were a teacher in high school, you make these subjects so appealing
I remember having a discussion with a friend who made a claim about something regarding some events that happened in our area.
I told him to prove it as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
He refused because he said "burden of proof" is only something used in court.
In hindsight, I should have simply just said, "provide proof".
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Simple Examples Should Come First
P1) If the power is off, then the light won’t come on.
P2) The light won’t come on.
C) Therefore, the power is off?
Well, what if it’s just that the bulb is bad? Bzzzrk!
Structure Should Be Taught Second
If A, then B
B
Therefore A
19:48 "A fallacy by any other name would still stink." -William Shakesman.
Love these, thanx Matt! 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌
Matt is a fellow atheist, therefore what he says about fallacies is 100% correct.
😂
Sounds good to me.
Valid and sound 🤓
You did not have correctness percentage in your premises, therefore the conclusion does not follow! 😂 jk
You sound like a salty christian. Is Matt wrong here on something - where?
You can add categories for quantitative and probabilistic fallacies too, alongside logical fallacies. The McNamara fallacy is a good example of a quantitative fallacy.
Using negation can be tricky. Matt Slick got taken to task for that, I seem to recall, when he tried to use not-God in his syllogism.
The "alive or not alive" can get weighty, which leads into being specific about the meanings of terms you use in your arguments. We all get this a lot when we lay out what we mean by "atheist" only to be told by a believer something that uses a different definition. Thus, we also have to analyse arguments for the description for terms that they lay out, and engage with the argument on its own terms, even if we don't like it. This does mean there might be an equivocation or conflation further down the line where the proponent tries to switch between definitions without you noticing.
Thanks for the information Matt! just hope you continue debating any theist who thinks that any God exists. 😊
You are a huge inspiration
Usually, in software development, programs with syntax errors do not compile, whereas a bug is when the program runs but does not produce the expected output.
Are you telling us that Matt committed a "presentation" (argument) from ignorance? xD
His parallel was sound, but not valid :D
Funny, I am not. Valid, I ham. Burger, I am. Giving up on this comment, I have.
@@Dawnarow Incorrect, he says a bug "where it can't compile" not that necessarily all bugs mean it can't compile.
Syntax error is a bug of coding. Your software has bugs that made you make the syntax error. Otherwise we would never have a syntax error. Everything would run perfectly. I'm being dumb.
The terms I've heard for this divide is syntax error vs logic error. Still, those don't cover the whole spectrum of errors. And in any case, I don't think it makes for a very successful analogy. I wouldn't advise anyone to use it for discussing logical arguments.
@@abigfavor You just confirmed the OP who clearly stated the difference between a bug (The program had no error in it's code, only in it's content) and a programming error (The program won't even compile due to an error in it's code, and therefore can never even run, until the error is corrected, and the program can be compiled).
The OP is correct in that either Matt used the wrong word, or just felt the need to clarify it, because the two are very often mixed up. Either way a bug and a programming error are two different things, and their names are not interchangeable by definition, and you calling both "Bug" when only one is, makes YOU the one who is incorrect in saying they are two different versions of the same thing when they are not!
Great video to commit logical fallacies to in the comments! Smart move (not)!
In an early class for computer programming, mostly long forgotten, we were told about the one-to-many-many-to-one "issue". In database construction, I think it was(?).
While I will not attempt to explain it, it does occationally happens that I reflect on that lesson when presented with statements.
Does the "truth value" change when I consider this as an individual, and as a part of humanity.
Such a wonderful Patreon Project. 🤩😍🤩😍🤩😍
2:15 minutes in, I get youtube giving me the first commercial.
Is it just me, or has youtube gotten really bad lately?
I've noticed a new style in the way the ads insert themselves, they dim and reduce volume of the video for a second, then play the ad, then when the video comes back it's rewound by a couple of seconds so you hear a bit of it again.
I find this makes the ad harder to ignore, which may be both the intended effect and a worse experience for me.
We were talking about fallacies in my philosophy class back in college and someone brought up a controversial topic that everyone was very sensitive about. The entire class went from being rational and calm to emotionally illogical and angry claiming that fallacies don't apply to such topics, because they considered their emotions to be facts...... oyy 😆
Matt, I have been watching you for a long time. The older I get, the more I realize people can't be 100% about everything all the time. Especially when feelings become involved. Therefore, people fall into traps, cults of all flavors including some extreme thinking.
I recently found myself about to accuse someone of using a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy but stopped myself when it didn't seem logically precise enough. I think we can indeed fall into lazy traps of thinking too strictly in terms of named fallacies and failing to assess whether our actual logic is sound.
Just out of curiosity (and in case it wasn't too complicated or long), what was the situation?
@@derwolf7810 (after an aborted attempt) I must tell you it is both complicated and long and I don't recall the precise sequence of the exchange now. I just felt like I had ben called the No True Scotsman when I personally knew I was being factual. I may have been arguing from personal attestation which is unfair by itself. I was 100% right but hadn't met my public burden of proof.
Special pleading is actually an interesting example, because when that fallacy is used, it's not just that the truth of the conclusion doesn't follow from the truth of the premises. It goes beyond that, and points out that this is actually an argument where the Falsehood of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises.
For example, let's take an argument that I heard from a theist recently: Only some people believe "minimizing harm and maximizing pleasure" is a good moral standard, therefore it should be considered purely subjective, and be rejected. By process of elimination, this means that you can only get objective morals from God.
When breaking this argument apart into its premises (and ignoring the false dichotomy, as it won't be relevant for what I'm about to do), you get:
1. A moral standard should be rejected as subjective if not everyone agrees with it.
2. Some people, but not everyone, thinks you should "minimize harm and maximize pleasure"
3. Therefore, Divine Command Theory is objective and true.
This is special pleading because it ignores that premises 1. and 2. imply that Divine Command Theory is subjective and should be rejected.
You have that 100% backward. That is a secuarlist view you completely debunked why a secularist view is 100% special pleading. That is not a christian ethics view.
@@DebateColloseum
"a secularist view is special peading"
I don't affirm the premises of the fallacious argument, so I don't see how that would be an example of special pleading from that side.
To clarify what I do or do not affirm:
I agree that if not everyone agrees with a moral imperative, then it's a stretch to call it objective, and it makes more sense to call it subjective.
I do not agree that any moral imperative must be dismissed on the basis of being subjective.
"That is not a christian ethics view"
You're not being clear about what "That" is supposed to be, but the fallacious argument I presented is a view of ethics that I have heard from many different Christian apologists. If you have a problem with that, you're free to distance yourself from their points, but don't blame me for criticizing them.
@@kappasphere Your initial argument "Minimizing Harm and Maximizing Pleasure" is not a theist or Christian ethical value. That is a secularist value. In fact, in the Christian worldview that statement is demonic. It has nothing to do with theism or Christian ethics at all.
Just because not everyone agrees doesn't make it objective. Objective truths don't change because people don't agree with them. That is what makes them objective.
If they did that would make them subjective and we have seen the result of subjective morality. It has created some of the worst travesties in human history.
@@DebateColloseum Thanks for clarifying what you were talking about.
Yes, "Minimizing harm and maximizing pleasure" is not the Christian view, and in fact had been presented as the competitor of the Christian view by the original argument.
The point is that the argument that was used to rule out this competitor, the argument being that not everyone agrees with it, equally applies to the Christian view, and so it is special pleading to both use the argument and promote the Christian view, as the argument also rules out the Christian view.
"Objective truths don't change because people don't agree with them."
If literally everyone agrees on something that would otherwise be subjective, that can be called "intersubjective", and also is how many people define "objective". But I can see why someone would find it important to make a distinction.
@@kappasphere To define objective morality is this. It is universal that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of culture or opinion.
Subjective morality and intersubjective moral standards allow for corruption and other horrific ideas and customs to form.
Subjective morality is nothing more than preferences of your opinion. YOu would then have to demonstrate how your preferences are better than mine.
Not only that since morality is just based on preferences then what happens if i reject your preferences to mine?
Love it. How about recommending reading Saruman? Thanks.
the first time I said to my deeply religious mother that was an argument from ignorance, she retorted, "I am not ignorant" At that moment I knew it was no use arguing fallacies with her and she did not understand what I meant.
Don't name it out loud, explain it with more words to show how x doesn't follow from y
Great metaphor with code.
not really, buggy code compiles all the time
Thank you for doing this for free.
5:16 Yeah, I don't like how "ignorant" somehow became synonymous with "stupid." If I say it, I'm simply saying they don't know what they are talking about. Everyone is ignorant of/about something, probably most things.
But yeah, I like knowing the name of the fallacy, but knowing if what is being said doesn't add up is better.
The variable thing you mentioned reminds me of Discrete Mathematics. Typically "If P, then Q"
Hey guys. Does anyone have any book recommendations that breaks these things down for review? Things like logical fallacies, syllogisms, premises etc. thanks!
Cyanid.
I made a women incredulous when I presented a long list during a conversation about food and chemicals.
She looked at the list and was appalled. Even more so when I said that all those items, including cyanid,
was chemicals she would eat every time she ate a natural grown apple from her own apple tree.
You say in a non-sequiteur argument the conclusion doesn't *necessarily* follow. I'd say it doesn't *ever* follow - it still may be right or wrong, but that has nothing to do with following.
I went one step further and committed a fallacy fallacy fallacy ..... ?
Fallacy fallacy can be thought recursive.
All thought in the fall I see.
Well this just made my Friday.
👏👏👏
I like people who pretend to know logic. They think it’s a word and not a strict set of rules or formula.
If xtians understood fallacies, donald trump wouldn't be at the top of the Republican ticket.
If atheists were as reasonable as they pretend to be, they wouldn't vote Democrat.
They literally believe in a god man 😭
If Christians understood Christianity, he wouldn't be there.
Its not fallacies, they really agree with all the bigoted stuff he says.
I remember Matt recommended an intro to Logic book that may have been a college textbook. Does anyone know the title/author?
I once got a shot for back pain. I got home and ate a whole box of Cheeze-Its, and my hunger stayed the same. I wanted more, but I thought, "Something is wrong," so I just forced myself to stop eating because I realized it was probably the shot, not natural hunger.
That, and also ultra processed foods being less filling in general.
👍🌻
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Simple Examples Should Come First
P1) If I drop the egg, then it will break.
P2) The egg is broken.
C) Therefore, I dropped it?
No, there are many ways to break an egg.
Structure Should Be Taught Second
If A, then B
B
Therefore A
It is fascinating to me how someone so adept at philosophy and who demonstrates such a keen understanding of logical syllogisms and fallacies can continue to use something like the Gumball Analogy, which is riddled with problems, as I've explained at-length in a video on my channel. I suppose it just goes to show that we _all_ have our biases and cognitive blind spots.
I haven't seen your video on the gumball analogy. I'll try and remember to check it out when I get back from work.
@@RustyWalker
The Patent Analogy is a good supplementary video.
One thing I hate about watching your videos, the line, Forrests Videos, Jimmys Podcast (yes Jimmy got/Has a podcast) etc. is that youtube begins to give me recommendations for "the other side".
And for some reason I thought, f... It, let us see what this is.
And in the comments, so many people was saying that it was a God given miracle/Devine intervention, that saved Trump from the "schooters"...
These people seriously believe, that God would use it's time, to save this orange Monkey, instead of saving good people.
Like perhaps stop a r..eist, or a car driven by a drunk driver, who cares not about others, that is about to hit another car, where the people in that car, is a family. And then the family dies, but the drunk driver survives....
"But God works in mysterious ways" 🤦🏼
What is one to do, against such stupidity?
I get why youtube is trying to give me more perspectives, and stop me from living in my own info bubble, but it scares me so much, that these people are out there, and they can Vote😬
Watching “flat earthers” videos is just a waste of time. I want to stay in my bubble of facts, science and reasons. Just by watching the news I am already exposed to more of the unhinged cultists than I need for my sanity.
Do your mental health a favor: use the “not interested” and “don’t recommend this channel” UA-cam options to block trash showing up in your feed.
If you are worried and want to do something volunteer for a campaign or join an activist group. You’ll meet likeminded people, have fun and make a difference. 👍
Be careful that content can make you punch your monitor. I too have this problem.
Yeah, I rarely click on that stuff. It isn't because I want to be in a bubble though, it is because they almost never have anything intelligent or interesting to say. It is almost always them presenting new arguments.. that are exactly the same thing they've been saying for decades.
@@Gandhi_Physique If you already assume they have nothing of importance to say, then you are the one, by definition, being close minded.
You can be right and still be in an echo chamber...
@@fomori2 Well, if I'm right then it doesn't really matter if I'm in an echo chamber.
And, my assumption is almost never wrong. What progress have theists made in the last decade, or even last 100 years with their lackluster arguments?
The only way I hear anything interesting at all is through atheist talk shows, and even then it is usually just a headache. 100% of the videos I have clicked that prove a god have been rehashed arguments that I've already heard. Upwards of 95% of theists on talk shows do the same thing. It is incredibly lame, and somehow even less interesting than flat earthers. Conspiracy theorists and theists have a lot in common tbh.
Also, it is possible for both sides to be close minded simultaneously.
New atheist here. Is there a book you would recommend where I can learn more about the logical structure of arguments and different fallacies? (I know you said I don't need to the labels, just want to ready more about it).
@missildine22 search this channel for a video about what to read
@@SansDeity Found it! Thanks!
Sounds like fallacy spotting is like Game calling. Familiarity with Byrne's PAC/Games is nesisary to spot a Game, let alone call it out.
No doubt a tome of girth could be written with new Game titles beyond such originals as 'Why don't you...yes, but.' and my personal favourite ' I've got you now you SOB!" 😆
😂
@Matt Dillahunty (et al): There's a Very Good, Very Detailed video on UA-cam called "Every Logical Fallacy Explained In 11 Minutes" by The Paint Explainer: It explains the most commonly used fallacies I hear in daily conversations I have with the wide variety of individuals I enter into an interlocutory debates with. Check it out if you haven't seen it yet and let me know what you think. I'd post the link right here but UA-cam won't allow such juvenile behavior lol :-)
There is a part 2 just uploaded
Indeed sums up quite a list in an awfull tempo. Wikipedia is even more useful. I did not like it at all
So it's ok to say I don't know? No shame no worries.
Argument from ignorance Matt! Of course I'm perfect!
Imma be that guy: You can get an odd number by adding two even numbers in base 3. 2+2=11.
11 is an even number in base 3
👋 👍
A fallacious argument cannot be assessed, whereas a phallacious argument will always be assessed--AND A LITTLE HARSHLY, SARAH.
Sigh Ops.
Hablo desde la prisión de Wandsworth en Londres. Quiero un trabajo en la prisión y este poema de amor es mi carta de presentación. Un día pasa y otro llega y ateos, cristianos y demás grupos religiosos continúan negándose a pedir que se pruebe el Corán fue memorizado. Estoy hablando de realidad innegable que está pasando delante de tus propios ojos, aquí y ahora. Estoy hablando de una verdad que es injustificable, ¿y si no cómo se justifica que mientras niños inocentes y vulnerables mueren en guerras ateos, cristianos y demás se niegen a pedir que el Corán fue memorizado?. ¿Por qué se niegan, cual son las consecuencias de negarse a pedir que se pruebe el Corán fue memorizado?. ¡Atento, que las malas intenciones se esconden!, ¡atento que te quieren ignorante para hacerte daño!. La verdad que te hace libre es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es "el amigo imaginario que vive en el cielo y hace milagros a cambio de rezos y vivir de rodillas" y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Dios existe porque lógicamente es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin el creador o infinitud, y si no me crees o entiendes puedes leer a Spinoza. Soy un psicólogo y persona racional y la verdad que puedes comprobar por ti mismo es el ateísmo y la religión te están costando tu salud mental y economía. Para superar una censura injusta la información que se prohibe tiene que ser compartida para que se conozca. ¿Mentirías a tus niños inocentes y vulnerables? Eres testigo e infinitamente importante. Gracias.
Smugly proclaiming Atheism is a logical fallacy is an admission of willful ignorance about atheism and logic . Spinoza's Hod isn't a creator god.
Hey Matt, why is it a problem to not have any grounds for a truth claim?
If I understood you correctly it would be a fallacy and I would have no good reason to believe the truth claim. Correct?
Then help me out here, if there is no God and everything is matter and energy. Do we have any good reason to believe anything?
Why are you misrepresenting what he's said about the existence of a god? When has Dillahunty ever claimed a god doesn't exist? Why can't you religious supstitionists ever be honest?
EDIT: HE WAS JUST A TROLL...
Hey! That is a great example of a non-sequitur! The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. "Do we have any good reason to believe in anything?" Is in itself a good question, but irrelevant to A) there being a god or not; and B) everything is matter and energy.
Why? Because it is still possible to be matter and energy AND a god existing.
@@wax99so your saying that god doesn’t need to transcend space time and matter for it to be god?
@EdwinReyes10 ehr, no, that what you said, "Do we have any reason to believe anything?" Is independent of there being a god. A god could exist and yet you could still have no good reason to believe anything.
@@wax99 ok so here’s what I think are the implications
If there is no god then what we call “reason” is not actually reason for it came from non reason. Giving us no good reason to believe in anything.
If there is a god then reason came from reason given us good reason to believe in reason. Giving us the preconditions of intelligibility
I always knew my fallacy had a fallacy, but just could not put my finger on it!
I just ate takeout Chow Mein. Now I'm hungry.
In nature, female praying mantises bite the heads off males just after mating.
When ever I hear the word reductio ad absurdum, I am always triggered to think of that idiot caller Xeno who thinks Matt is a narcissist, and was himself a narcissist and ridiculous
Sounds like a fun episode. Can I get the name?
@@boogit9979 just look up Xeno AXP and find some of his call to TH and AXP, with different hosts there's probably 8-10 of his nonsensical calls, but his justification for believing in god he always would say a reductio ad absurdum while not understanding what that was, a call with Kenneth and JMike particularly, you'll also notice his calls get progressively shorter as the host realize it is the same bullshit as previous calls and just hang up
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Simple Examples Should Come First
P1) If Jesus rose from the dead, then the tomb will be empty.
P2) The tomb is empty.
C) Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead?
Yeah, no. There are countless reasons for why the tomb was empty.
Structure Should Be Taught Second
If A, then B
B
Therefore A
This one introduces the idea of accepting a premise for the sake of the argument to see if the conclusion would follow. Sometimes, it's tempting to deny the premise immediately when it is more fruitful to follow the argument and show it doesn't work.
one special case where invalid argument means that god doesnt exist, when god was going to be true because of the argument.
on the other hand a valid and good argument cant prove a god into existence. he will remain as real as man created him. maybe that shoild have been the creation story.
If a shape is a square, then it is a rectangle.
Therefore my rectangle is a square
I feel like this works ok as an example
0:49 fallacy fallacy fallacy
In debate when you start losing an argument why you start behaving like b_a_s_t_a_r_d.
You must have called into one of his shows, and he shredded you. LOL.
Give us a specific example where this happened.
Poor Mat Dillahunty, he ran away from spirituality, now he's super glued forever with ZUES, lol. He was never so busy in his brief taste of religious consciousness as now. ZEUS in the am & pm and day dreamin. lol. Wanted to run away from you, but now... stuck on you, ZEUS. lol
Poor timkhan2338. Matt Dillahunty was a devout Christian until mid-life, and abandoned the faith after a long personal effort to discover and demonstrate its truth. He was raised as a Southern Baptist, and was expected by everyone around him to become a successful preacher, but he joined the Navy instead. That was his "brief taste of religious consciousness." Your barely literate comment demonstrates that YOUR religious consciousness is as shallow and empty-headed as they come. The fool in his foolishness brays insults at the wise.
Well he just committed a circular argument fallacy right in the first minute. Just because I layout a ton of fallacious arguments doesn't make the conclusion wrong simply because i say so. A fallacy on its face is this " A fallacious argument as one that either is deductively invalid or is inductively very weak or contains an unjustified premise or that ignores relevant evidence that is available." This definition by itself proves him wrong.
The entire software thing is wrong. You 100% can compile code with bugs in it. You simply won't get the result you are expecting. What you can't compile is code that as syntax errors. This means that the structural issue in the code is missing something. Typically there is a semi-colon somewhere that you forgot about.
I have thought about this for a while. The question of Does God exist is a bit of a trap question. IE Dillahunty will ask someone to prove the existence of God. While the person can no more prove God exists than Dillahunty can show he doesn't. This is more of a theological question. We are dealing with more of beliefs of people. Statements of belief are just that statements of belief.
If you(I) lay out a fallacious argument, you can't say you're(I'm) wrong.
That's correct. That a fallacy fallacy. He just explained that.
The point is if you have a fallacious argument, you can not rationally reach your conclusion. Sure, you can reach a correct answer from bad reasons. That doesn't warrant the reasons for the answer.
I don't see how it's circular.
@@boogit9979they did a "not listening" fallacy
@@boogit9979 He said it in the first minute. You also have to look at the definition of a fallacy. If you lay out a line of fallacious arguments then yeah your conclusion is going to be wrong. Why? because the structure used for the conclusion is wrong. See the definition
To use his example correctly though. A fallacy is a structural flaw in an argument. It doesn't compile. It won't compile. You can try and make it compile but it just won't work.
That is different than a bug in your argument. A flawed argument can reach a right conclusion. That is the distinction.
@@DebateColloseum he literally says point blank that fallacious arguments can have true conclusions, I'm really not sure what your problem is here
@@TheLightlock No they can't. A fallacy is (using his own example based on the definition of the word) a syntax error in an argument.
Just because you don't like that doesn't change facts.
There is a difference between a fallacious argument and a bad argument, or an argument that has a bug in it.
Even with a bug in the program it will run and work. It might even function perfectly fine and work properly. it might use more resources but it still can produce a correct result.
A syntax error will never work. it won't even compile. Please go back and re-read the definition of a fallacious argument.
There is a delineation between a fallacious argument and a bad or poorly worded argument.
Used to be a big fan, but Matt has become the Darth Dawkins of atheists.