I trimmed the start of unnecessary fluff, and therefore: new timestamps! 0:19 Fallacy of Composition 0:29 Fallacy of Division 0:39 The Gambler's Fallacy 0:47 Tu Quoque (Who Are You To Talk?) 1:06 Strawman 1:19 Ad hominem 1:35 Genetic Fallacy Correction: 1:43 Important clarification: fallacious appeal to authority is when you assume someone’s claims about [bacon] are valid in spite of the fact that they are in fact a [cheese] expert. However, it is also a fallacy to assume that just because someone is an expert on [bacon] that they will always be factually accurate when talking about [bacon], especially if they do not provide evidence. 1:43 Fallacious Appeal To Authority 2:02 Red Herring 2:21 Appeal to Emotion 2:35 Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon) 2:39 Appeal to Tradition 2:43 Appeal to Nature 2:51 Appeal to Ignorance 3:03 Begging the Question 3:19 Equivocation 3:37 False Dichotomy (Black or White) 3:47 Middle Ground Fallacy 3:56 Decision Point Fallacy (Sorites Paradox) 4:16 Slippery Slope Fallacy 4:33 Hasty Generalisations (Anecdotes) 4:52 Faulty Analogy 5:01 Burden of Proof 5:30 Affirming the Consequent 5:57 Denying the Antecedent 6:09 Moving the Goalposts 6:22 False Cause (and Texas Sharpshooter) 6:41 Loaded Question 6:48 No True Scotsman 6:57 Personal Incredulity 7:05 The Fallacy Fallacy
your example of strawman is not very good mainly because there is virtualy no one advocating for less petroleum products(plastics,etc) which is what i assume you meant where as people in the current climate would prob assume you are misinformed and actually meant to say oil production which Joe Bidens administration has actively been preventing but at the time you made the video it was prob a pretty good example
I remember learning about these sorts of fallacies in my rhetoric class, and then the next unit was "now that we know the different types of fallacies, here's where we learn how to use them to sound persuasive"
The fallacy fallacy is so important and so often forgotten. Just because you discover a fallacy in someones reasoning, it doesn't necessarily invalidates their point, it only means that the reasoning they used to arrive at their conclusion is flawed.
It doesn't mean they are wrong. It means we can't _rely_ on their being right and should reject their ideas until the re-evaluate their position using rigorous logic. What you are proposing has literally gotten people killed in the real world and is utterly disastrous thinking.
It does in a sense invalidate their point LMFAO. The very concept of a dialectic is to propose logically valid and or consistent point, so if someone's argument is predicated on a fallacy, that invalidates their argument, however, it doesnt make their conclusion or point actually incorrect
yeah, you can make some mistakes in a math problem and still get the right answer. Buuut, that usually involves going back, inspecting all of the steps along the way and then maybe solving it again
This is why I stopped debating with people in general. People will tell you that "they are great debaters" and that "they always leave their opponent speechless" and then will mindlessly start spamming fallacies with zero regurosity. Suddenly, when I ask for rigutosity, they don't wanna debate anymore.
It seems to me that people (including myself) don't know almost anything. We navigate reality with our schemas and concepts but when the real substantial knowledge is very little! Just my experience. I think that natural wisdom is a different thing, if you know what I mean :)
0:33 Fallacy of Composition 0:42 Fallacy of Division 0:52 The Gambler's Fallacy 1:00 Tu Quoque (Who Are You To Talk?) 1:19 Strawman 1:32 Ad hominem 1:49 Genetic Fallacy 1:56 Fallacious Appeal To Authority 2:15 Red Herring 2:34 Appeal to Emotion 2:48 Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon) 2:52 Appeal to Tradition 2:56 Appeal to Nature 3:04 Appeal to Ignorance 3:16 Begging the Question 3:32 Equivocation 3:50 False Dichotomy (Black or White) 4:00 Middle Ground Fallacy 4:09 Decision Point Fallacy (Sorites Paradox) 4:29 Slippery Slope Fallacy 4:46 Hasty Generalisations (Anecdotes) 5:05 Faulty Analogy 5:14 Burden of Proof 5:43 Affirming the Consequent 6:10 Denying the Antecedent 6:22 Moving the Goalposts 6:35 False Cause (and Texas Sharpshooter) 6:54 Loaded Question 7:01 No True Scotsman 7:10 Personal Incredulity 7:18 The Fallacy Fallacy
What I found interesting was that I took an advertising class and the logic back to back. Ends up all the fallacies in the logic class are nearly the same as advertising techniques in the advertising class. For instance: The logic class will point out the falsehood of bandwagoning, where the advertising class teaches you to tell people to join the bandwagon!
@@TheNefastor Well, not the exact opposite, both have similar concepts, demolition is more or less tearing something down safely, so both might tell you fire safety
Wow. Having grown up surrounded by fallacy laden arguments, I thought I had found clever ways to avoid them. Turns out many of the clever ways are just different fallacies.
I've actually just embraced the fallacies that I do know... except for the straw man. By using them, I can accomplish a few things. First, I can be prepared for how I think the other person would (or should contest my points). Second, if I use enough of them, my opponents will get overwhelmed and not be able to properly contest my point, if they choose to contest it at all at that point. In casual conversations, a lot of people just jokingly say that I'm right and move on.
I heard there was once an interview with Frank Zappa. The interviewer was this vietnam vet who lost a leg in the war and was notorious for giving guests a hard time. First thing he said was "I guess your long hair makes you a girl." . Zappa instantly replied: "I guess your wooden leg makes you a table."
Let's not forget the "last word" fallacy -- if I get the last word, it means that I was right (at least in my own mind). I'm not sure the internet could survive without this one.
@@handsomerat5926 It was just the shortest way I could think to phrase it. All it meant was that talking to people who are incapable of or unwilling to correcting their logic inspires one to rudeness very quickly. After a while, you give up having a civilized conversation, and either leave without further comment or descend into angry ranting.
When I was younger, I use to argue with people in hoping to find truth. It didn't matter to me if I ended up being wrong. But as I got older I started to realize a lot of people don't argue to find truth. They just argue to be right
The complete opposite happens a fair bit too and is equally as frustrating. People just conceding their point immediately upon being challenged to avoid the argument. I want to know how they got to that conclusion! But instead of reasoning it out to me all I get is "No, you're right, forget I said anything." At least its over quickly I guess
@@HeroGuy3 Oh its so frustrating when you want someone to explain their opinions and they just refuse and concede that they were wrong. Like no im not saying you are necessarily wrong I just want to know how to reached the conclusion.
btw, is it a fallacy or just a "flaw" that a lot of people these days feel offended when you point out a mistake/suggest-them-an-improvement? "you pointed out my error, ergo you must hate me" (i ain't sure if it's a variant of the black/white mentality or just not understanding the process of growth)
One very important thing to remember about fallacies. Pointing out a fallacy is not unto itself a counter-argument, it merely exposes a potential flaw in some part of what the other person has said. Critically even with a fallacy an argument can still be generally valid if the fallacy is removed; for example hyperbole and exaggeration removed from an argument can still leave a completely valid argument.
@@TheOmegaXicor Literally, yes, you're right, the fallacy fallacy. Just because the method is wrong, the conclusion may be correct or incorrect. The problem with fallacies isn't that they ensure you're wrong. It's that they make your thinking unreliable and therefore usually wrong. (Since there are more incorrect conclusions than correct ones, etc.) And literally, a fallacious argument cannot be valid. By definition, it's invalid. It may have the correct conclusion but you should junk the argument and look for a valid one.
But usually someone who commits basic fallacial reasoning frequently doesn't _have_ a valid argument. It's hard to take someone seriously when all their online comments lead with read herrings, tu quoqe, or appeals to authoritiy.
@@Caseytify Agreed. Fallacies are a strong indicator that the person using them doesn't have anything worth listening to but not a guarantee that they're wrong. Such people may get things right by coincidence, rare but possible. Worth remembering that valid arguments may still be entirely wrong, because the premises are wrong but the form is correct, while sound arguments must be correct.
@@Caseytify The issue is that the internet has lead to an era of absurd pedantry, where people will try hard to find any basis that someone is technically wrong, with the explicit intent of invalidating what they have said regardless of relevance. In my own merely anecdotal cases I've rarely seen someone call out a fallacy by name for any other reason. Aside from that any form of hyperbole or straw man is an area to be careful about, because often even if the exaggeration is removed the point remains. People love to add emphasis.
I wish everyone knew these fallacies before engaging in debates. I've also found that taking courses in statistics and psychology seem to have helped me make stronger arguments.
This is a hard one to apply sometimes. It’s only fallacious if it’s actually worth it to abandon your current strategy and that’s difficult to measure in a lot of situations.
This is the best response to people that say, "Never give up." In my opinion, if you take piano lessons once a week and practice 10 hours a day everyday, but still play the piano poorly, then you should quit. You spent too much time, energy, and money into something and you aren't getting a good return on investment. If people say that you already spent so much time practicing and it would be a waste to quit now, you can tell them that they are using the sunk cost logical fallacy.
@@davidkippy101 as aggravating as the "because I said so" of childhood is, it's a cake walk compared to dealing with delusional/conspiracy-nut parents for multiple decades until they pass away :(
Why do so many people think their parents are idiots and that they know everything? I am not saying this because you prove it to be true I’m just asking because your comment inspired the thought and reminded me of it.
"Here, take this belladonna, it's very natural!" Me: "What's 'belladonna'?" *Googling occurs* 'Atropa belladonna, commonly known as belladonna or deadly nightshade, is a poisonous perennial herbaceous plant in the nightshade family Solanaceae...' "Oh noes..."
When I was a very low-ranking member of the military, I was attending a seminar about management and leadership. Halfway through the lecture, I raised my hand to ask a question about some of the speaker's assertions. In response, the instructor condescendingly asked, "Who are YOU to question me about management theory?" I replied, "Well since you asked - I recently completed a masters degree in management at Park University, so I think I know a little about it." (Then the audience immediately burst into laughter.) He was attempting a fallacious appeal to authority, but I trumped him with my own fallacious appeal to authority.
@@funkyflames7430 Sometimes you have to beat people with their own weapons. E.g. yesterday my boyfriend conplained about me using an English word in a sentence in our language and he said "We have such a beautiful language. Why do you have to use English words??". Afterwards, he went gaming and talked to friends on Discord and gamer language is full of English words in I guess all languages. So I memorised all the words derived from other languages (mostly English of course) that he used to tell him later. Also, I told him about all the normal words in our language that are actually derived from e.g. Latin that he used. Yeah, maybe childish, but now he probably learnt quite a bit about our language and hopefully will refrain from calling me out when I use English words in the future.
I love fallacies. Or, more accurately, I love finding, exploring, and tabulating them like this! I read my first logic book in high school, A Rulebook for Arguments, and I learned MUCH more about good argumentation from the Appendix on fallacies in the back than I did from the rest of the book or even my collegiate logic classes. This was a fun reminder of that, thanks Jill. After all, you have to be able to spot a bad argument before you can make a good one yourself! Or, 'if you only read one newspaper, read the enemy's.' Or . . . something like that, anyway. 😁
@@rockwallaby550 It's the responsibility of the voter to decide for themselves which candidate is their best choice. I assume you would want unbiased referees. How would they be chosen when it's damn near impossible to decide on Supreme Court Justices who are unbiased?
once you learn about the fallacies / learn to identify them I guarantee, you will never be able to watch a high class political debate again. Some people liked trump, some people didn't, honestly I never got that far, because he used so many logical fallacies I could barely even keep track of what he said (not saying his opponents didn't as well)
@@zzzcocopepe I don't see many fallacies on Reddit. People there usually just say you're wrong and downvote you. That's not a logical fallacy, it's saying shut up and conform to the hive mind.
I had an acquaintence post a video of a nurse talking talking about why the Covid vaccines were bad (clearly an appeal to authority) I pointed out that there are Doctors who are also in the medical field who disagree with her. All sorts of idiocy ensued after that and I was called every name under the sun, goal posts were shifted, strawmen erected, it was pretty entertaining to see an adult that couldn't be challenged without having a literal tantrum.
The whole lockdown and vaccine campaign were a treasure trove of logical fallacies heaped upon us: appeal to authority, moving the goalpost, false cause, tu quoque...We all need these lessons to protect us from the authorities so hopefully they don't pull the wool over our eyes again.
In my opinion, You said the the key sentence... “It is good to point at what it is that makes meaningful discussions impossible” I appreciate that wording very much because you did not say point at who. Love that! Just one word makes a big difference.
I think a classic example of Tu Quoque is when a sibling says “You’re not dad, [therefore I can not listen to you without consequence, and so you should just leave me alone].” Honoring your parents isn’t the only reason you should do what they say, for example if they’re telling you to look both ways.
Here is one that I've seen in real life. "You're homophobic because you don't like guys in croptops. Gay guys wear croptops so not liking gay guys in croptops makes you homophobic." Straw man, black and white, no true Scotsman, etc.
Also- not liking guys in crop tops can be homophobic DEPENDING on your reasoning. If you just don't think it looks good obviously that's fine. But if you think it's a sign of the impending destruction of western society, there's probably something a little deeper there lol
I'd say it could be an indication of whether or not a person is homophobic, based on the largely overlapping Venn diagram of homophobes and people who think men shouldn't wear crop tops edit: grammar
Well. Actually time & space get faster every time the time passes, by the relativity theory it will get slow until it resets and get perfeclty balanced has all thing in nature should be.
I love how you used a dog refference for red herring, as the term derrives from using the red pickled herring meat to try and distract training hound dogs so they learn not to lose a scent.
Hey Jill, I thought this was great! As a long time Christian, I can see how many (er... maybe all) occur within my own life. I can be bettter! Thanks for helping me on my journey.
Pointing out logic fallacies has its own risks. I once had a continuous argument with a religious type. His arguments were often like "if A then B" where neither A nor B were true, and the logic by which B follows from A was also faulty. But when I tried to answer like "Even if A is true, B doesn't follow" his reply would be like "Here! You admit that A is true!"
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....maybe. Your friend's argument is Boolean in nature. If A is true and B is true then A and B are true etc etc. If Elephants are grey and battleships are grey, then elephants must be battleships and battleships of course are elephants, everyone knows that.
So, basically the hattrick of being wrong :) I find "proves too much" to be a good way to point out bad premises or arguments (show that the same premise and argument can also "prove" absurd conclusions). But that probably only works when the audience has at least a basic understanding of formal logic...
I feel this so hard. I tried to create a debate club in the eighth grade, but it got disbanded immediately because the only people that joined were some boys that didn’t take it seriously and they all would only take the same side (straight up refused to debate the other side). I ended up being the only one on the other side, arguing with 7 other people, all of which doing this exact thing
A few things that may not fit the definition of a fallacy but are often parts of people making arguments in bad faith: The steady-step fallacy, related to the slippery slope fallacy. Just because something can stop at a point, does not mean it will stop at that point. The Definitional fallacy: someone defines a term a particular way and expects all others to accept that definition as true. And finally for now, The conflation of personal contempt with ad-hominem. Essentially, someone can say that their opponent in an argument is evil, and that their argument is wrong, as two separate things. See: “Your argument is wrong because I hate you” (fallacious) “Your argument is wrong and I hate you.” (Not-fallacious)
My least favorite: Personal Incredulity. I live with a narcissist. Aside from the many delights associated with that, the one I find most irritating, probably because I have to deal with it most, is that if this said person has an opinion, it isn't their opinion, but rather, it is THE ONLY OPINION, RENDERING ALL OTHER OPINIONS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY INCORRECT.
@@Applest2oApples the problem is when it's about subjective opinions, like food or movies or art. I used to date a narcissist and his incessant proclamations on the "right" books, movies, etc were the most obvious and annoying of his many symptoms.
I find it very hard to believe there are 31 whole fallacies that can be explained in just 8 minutes. I mean, I'm an expert in fish farming, therefore I cannot believe that you, someone who talks about movies on UA-cam, could know them. I mean, if that were the case, obviously, you think the world should be ruled by UA-cam reviewers, and you can see how much that makes me sad, so you should stop. :)
What?! A real Jill fan would never write such nonsense! It is long been known that almost all of the channel's subscribers aren't you, and since I believe that you are wrong, and I am not you, I'm in the right to say that you wrote nonsense.
My mom (no longer with us) once said all unions are bad because this one woman (union leader or member?) was trying to extort thousands of dollars from a small business the union was involved with and was also lazy and mean. I think there were at least three there? Thank you again!
Let me see if I got them right: Hasty generalisation - Your mom concluded generally that all unions are bad based on the limited experience she had with this (probaly) very few unions Fallacy of composition - Believing the entire union was bad based off of a single individual who was part of it Ad hominem - Attacking the woman based off of her traits ('lazy' and 'mean') rather than arguing for why her actions were bad
7:09 My favorite argument that I have ever heard is the one that went like this: Person 1: People usually base their world view on logic, facts are a great way to convince people. Person 2: Would you like to read this article, I recently saw on Face Book that says otherwise, that human beings are naturally predisposed to cognitive dissonance and that proving someone wrong usually makes them more positive that they are right. Person 1: Even if you showed me a study, I still wouldn't believe that.
'a study' is only evidence for or against a position.. but is it enough to prove or disprove the position? Studies can be flawed. It should take multiple studies that come to the same conclusion or show significantly similar end results/data to actually prove or disprove a position. A single study can be used as a compelling argument, however, if the source of the study is reputable and not biased in it's methodology.
I'd like to add one...the fallacy of thinking you can use reason to show someone that their argument is based on a logical fallacy. People who rely on logical fallacies to prove their point will never see that their logic is flawed. That's basically why you never bother arguing with the loud and chaotic voices on the internet.
my 'favorite' fallacy would have to be the 'starving children in Africa' fallacy- you know, the combination of red herring and appeal to emotion that tries to both shut the person up and make them feel guilty about bringing up the argument in the first place (ie "those lazy, selfish retail workers should stop whining about how low the minimum wage is- don't they know there are starving children in Africa?!?")
This is a favourite in my group of friends. The official name is Appeal to Worse Problems but I think the name African Orphan Fallacy is evocative and gets across the basic idea.
"Stop complaining that I kidnapped you and tied you to a chair. I have given you food and there are children starving in Africa." "So what if you have an abusive parents. There are other who don't have parents nor a home" "Who cares that you are being bullied in school. Many girls like you in Middle East can't even go to school."
Same here it's a shame this stuff wasn't taught in school. Instead of being taught the Prussian education / mimicry system using the servile and utilitarian arts. I wish I was taught the liberal arts instead. So I have been teaching myself for the last year about logical fallacies and sophistry and a bit of NLP but all I have is a few PDFs from universities. Can anyone point me to any good resources please on logical fallacy and maybe some stuff on syllogism and enthymemes thank you
4:14 _platypi_ is actually the incorrect plural. If you wanna stay true to it's Greek origins then it's _platypodes_ but realistically it's just _platypuses_ innit
I like videos about critical thinking Jill. I know your whole channel has changed however it would be nice to see you completely deep dive into critical thinking. I love this stuff. And you're really good at it
i need a video about things like these but for i dont know what youd call them but things like guilt tripping, lamp shading, gaslighting, etc, because some of those things are easy to do unintentionally or subconsciously and itd be good to point them out so you can catch yourself or others doing them
At Norwegian universities the first course you take is called examen philosophicum (ex.phil.). The course focuses on philosophy, logic and argumentation. This course was established in 1675 and have continued to this day.
It used to be part of basic education up until about 100 years ago ( see the Trivium ) when industrial public education was established. They didn't want an intelligent and articulate population that would question the decisions of their "superiors". It is now reserved for the elite schools or elective classes in college/universities.
Burden of proof fallacy is my pet peeve because we see it in action all the time. "Prove God doesn't exist" is one of the common ones encountered. To which I usually reply "Prove my invisible pink Unicorn doesn't exist" 😂
@@ryry854 They mean the fallacy works in both directions. Theist: “God is real.” Atheist: “Then prove it!” Theist: “Can you prove that he isn’t? No, you can’t. So he must be real.”
I´m really adding to my friends live. When I came to visit them yesterday they were all sad, but you should have seen their happy faces when I was about to leave.
I had to pause and rewind this video countless times because every fallacy presented made me stop and think, losing focus on the next one. Super good video
The burden of proof fallacy is by far one of my least favorites. I use it as an indicator that I should end the conversation immediately because I'm dealing with someone that firmly believes in nonsense and refuses to consider otherwise.
Oh my god, I did not even know about the Tu Quoque fallacy and I hear that shit all the time, but didn't know why I found myself skeptical of those statements!
Ugh...it's so frustrating when I find myself committing one of these, especially the fallacy fallacy. I'm generally fairly familiar with these fallacies overall, since I love to listen to debates and the like. Since debates and philosophy lectures are entertainment to me, I kind of think of understanding these fallacies to be similar understanding tropes in fiction. (Cogs in the machine kind of thing, and I know that's not a fully encompassing analogy, but it works for my thoughts here.) But as a result it can be easy for me to be dismissive of others when arguing or just generally disagreeing with someone and I notice one of these fallacies, since my stupid pattern-recognizing brain looks at that one piece of the argument and latches onto it way more than it should. And then as I'm thinking everything over later, I have to cringe at myself. :/
the fact that you're even able to fully realize your own faults should make you proud of yourself :) not many people do (from my own experience at least)
Could you tell me where you watch the debates / the kinds of debates you watch? I have trouble finding actual good ones instead of two idiotic politicians arguing when they're both in the wrong lol
Duru Buyukbasaran Hi, I’m hoping to learn more about debate myself and I’m not sure where to start. I see you’ve had trouble looking for many good debates. Could you recommend any good examples that you have found? :7
@@durubuyukbasaran9676 I'll watch most anything, but i started out since i wanted to get into law so watched andd read a lot of court stuff. Legal Eagle is a decent channel for that, and more generally speaking id check the World Universities Debating Championships
As you get older and get more experience you start to learn that the slippery slope fallacy is not always a fallacy. Sometimes it actually a logical progression that young people cannot see because they lack experience.
It's always a fallacious argument, as in, does not make logical sense. Doesn't mean that people don't actually slide down the slope frequently, or even most of the time! It can still be good advice even if not absolutely 100% true for everyone all the time.
But there is a test. If the slippery slope can be stopped at any time is the test. So just because you are older does not NECESSARILY mean you are wiser. What fallacy is that?
my least favorite is the strawman. pretty much every time someone tries to explain what people on the other side of the political spectrum they try to make them sound worse than they are. i suspect that this is a significant part of todays hyperpartisan world
It doesn't help that people from both the left and the right live up to the strawman image that the other side paints. That's another unfortunate consequence of a hyperpartisan world; people get so polarized that they fulfill the stereotype (on both sides of the spectrum).
I think she got the description of "Argument from Authority" and "Burden of Proof" wrong. 1. Proving "2+2=4" by pointing out that the greatest mathematicians in all of history said so is STILL not a valid argument. 2. In her ghost example, there were TWO claims: "I am a ghost" and "No, you're not". Both are claims that require a valid argument, not simply the first one.
Middle Ground Fallacy: Some people like their hot pizza 🥵 Some people like their refrigerated pizza 🥶 So clearly the best pizza is at room temperature 😋
@@AllenFreemanMediaGuru assuming cold is 16 degrees at hot is 40 degrees and hot pizza is 20% better than cold pizza. that means 40-16=24 therefore 100% = 5 * 24 which means the perfect pizza temperature is 100+20 = 120 degrees.
Completely wrong: all pizza is good hot, cold or room temperature. The only preceding requirement is that it is not raw or frozen but has been cooked at some point before eating.
UA-cam algorithm leading me to this video “You just enjoyed the Bear and Breakfast trailer, we think you’ll enjoyJill Bearup?” .... I really did ... but the irony is not lost on me that correlation does not imply causation here!
Just wanted to comment that my college is using this video as a resource for Critical Thinking courses. As a long-time fan of the channel, this made me happy. Cheers!
Okay but what is the name of the fallacy that basically goes A: "I dislike this for such and such reasons" B: "Well you can't do better, so who are you to judge?"
@@MrShyguyRS -- "Tu Quoque" means "You, too". Example: Person A: "You just told a lie" B: "Well you lie, too" This says nothing about the about the case in point, which is the veracity of the case in point.
I don't totally disagree with tu quoque fallacy and sometimes fallacies can fit into more than 1 category. An example like this could also be a black and white fallacy. A: "I dislike my boss because they are incompetent." B: "Well you couldn't do any better." Subject B implies that there are only 2 options: that the incompetent boss or subject A be the boss. In reality, any number of people could be the boss and might be better than subject A or the current boss.
Right, tu quoque and black and white... Depending on the case, looks to me like it could also be ad hominem, genetic fallacy or fallacious appeal to authority.
This was a great video, well explained and concise. What I would like to see though, over and above this, is sophisticated examples of these fallacies in action, because in practice they exist in politics ad nauseum and are sometimes glaringly obvious, but other times quite subtle. Also, these concepts are often piled together to appear more forcible.
So - is it Irish or Scottish? There are similarities, like there are similarities berween New York and Bostonian, but Irish and Scots are from different islands. I'll help out - it's the accent of someone from the northern part of Ireland (probably Northern Ireland) that has had a decent education and training in accents. And BRIAN New Zealand? You're out of your depth!
Its important to remember that a slipper slope argument is only a fallacy if the speaker cannot demonstrate how the steps in the slope will cause the end effect.
But the majority of the time a slippery slope fallacy is used is in a situation where it’s impossible to demonstrate that each step will be a certainty. The slippery slope almost always asserts that “if we do ...... then people will ..... and that of course will result in people ” - and even if it seems likely that people will react a certain way in response to something - it’s impossible to prove it strongly enough to prevent this from being a fallacious argument. The only way you could prove your slippery slope argument strongly enough to avoid it being a fallacy is in a purely mechanical system where the laws of science make it absolutely certain that the chain reaction described by your “slippery slope” would most certainly occur - however, in any situation like that, the point could be argued (and proven) much more effectively without needing to resort to using a slippery slope analogy.
@@Tenly2009 I'd just like to point out that you said "slippery slope fallacy" instead of "slippery slope argument". It is a fallacy to conflate these two, and therefore your entire argument is wrong. :)
Jacob Power ••• A logical fallacy is only a logical fallacy if it somehow breaks down or subverts reason . I've found that the most dangerous fallacies are the appeal to authority, the questionable / inadequately supported premise, and suppressed evidence . These are the ones used by the State to do stuff like herd us off to war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
To her credit, she did just what you're suggesting. She said if you can stop at any point on the "slope" then it's a fallacy (with the implication being if you can't stop you have a proof, or at least that was what I assumed).
Causation is not correlation was always my favourite, complicated by the fact that I could rarely remember the words, beyond that they started with a 'c', and so had to keep looking it up. It's possible that it has finally stuck, now, like remembering the name of the actor who played the Marquis de Carabas, Patterson Joseph, without using the crime writer, James Patterson, as a cue, but time will tell if it has...
Ah, the 80s, when a band's biggest hit was the name of the band: Living in a Box by Living in a Box Talk Talk by Talk Talk In a Big Country by Big Country Bad Religion by Bad Religion I'm sure there's more, that's the ones that come to mind.
Right? All I've got so far is that you can never prove or unprove anything exists,you shouldn't believe something written in a book if it says in said book believe the book is always true and you can't use someone else's inexperience to stop them from giving you advice. Honestly,my brain feels like it's trying to understand time travel,paradoxes and ex machinas.
Minor correction: an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy can refer to an expert in the same field, not just an expert in some other field. Being an expert doesn't make a person correct, even in that person's field of expertiese. [edit: apparently my expertise in typing failed me]. What you're talking about is an appeal to *false* authority.
In that case, Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy. Going "I don't understand this, so I should trust the knowledge of an expert in the field" is common sense. But it does rely on said expert being right.
@@1987MartinT nah, it’s still a fallacy. Being an expert doesn’t make anyone correct. It may increase the likelihood of being correct, but it doesn’t guarantee it. Trust me, I’m an expert.
@@willerwin3201 Like I said: it does rely on said expert being right. But, yes, an expert on a subject, while not guaranteed to be right, is more likely to be right about something concerning said subject than someone who isn't an expert on the subject.
imo appealing to (citing) an authority is a fallacy if the implication is that this provides PROOF. It’s not a fallacy if it only strengthens one’s case.
There's one fallacy I really despise that wasn't on this list: double standard. Applying a certain set of rules to one thing, but not to another. Also, special pleading. Allowing an exception to the system for one specific phenomenon. And another one, circular reasoning. A chain of arguments that ultimately lead back where you started, which has a lot of overlap with Begging the Question.
Easy way to detect strawman fallacy, a lot of times it starts with "so what you are saying is..." Essentially rephrasing their thoughts to change their narrative for it to be easier to attack
Hi! New sub here. Love this video! I gotta say I love goalpost moving. It’s fun to be faced with someone who pulls it constantly, and just talking them into running in circles.
Another logical fallacy I know is circular reasoning, the act to support your reason by restating your claim, like "wind is invisible because I can't see it. The reason why I can't see it because it's wind." It makes your statement more clear, but doesn't prove your point in any way.
Minor nitpick with Equivocation (3:19) If it is just a matter of proper authority, then a deistic authority could turn off or change the law of gravity if they so choose.
You forgot one I learned in school Non Sequitur: Basically making a false judgement "All the houses in the neighborhood are expensive; therefore they must be well made."
But that's not that crazy of an idea that expensive houses are well made. A non sequitur would be more like "all the houses in the neighbourhood are expensive so they must all have pools" wouldn't it? Idk
Let's see if I can get this right: A non sequitur, which is Latin for 'it does not follow', exists in 'Formal Fallacies' such as "affirming the consequent". Its premises may be true but the conclusion while also true, doesn't follow the premise. For example: All the houses in the neighborhood are expensive. Penguins cannot fly. Therefore, throwing hot oil on a policeman is a pretty bad idea. Or the premises are true but the conclusion false: The person who manages Lady Gaga is very wealthy. Donald Trump is very wealthy. Therefore, Donald Trump manages Lady Gaga. As a logic device a non sequitur is usually more subtle, but as a literary device can be wildly absurd as they're often used for comedic purposes.
0:30 This would actually be true, the example you use, if we were talking about the scale. Like if you said the flat was literally 2 times smaller in scale, then yes one flats doors would be half the size, but when we talk about the size of a flat we’re talking about floor space obviously. It’s a fine example just brings out the pedant in me
My favorite fallacy is slippery slope because it's almost always announced by name ahead of time. "If we do X, then it will be a SlIpPeRy SLoPe and Y will happen"
Loved the video. Another common fallacy that could be added to the list is the "ad hitlerum", i.e. refuting an argument by associating it to either Hitler or the Nazis. Pretty much every internet debate is bound to have an ad hitlerum at some point.
"Aha! You said you are british in your argument! Who did the British colonize? The Indians! What do some Indians practice? Hinduism! What does Hinduism have as a symbol? The SWASTIKA!"
Godwin cautioned against using his "law" to indiscriminately attack any and all arguments that include associations with Hitler/NAZIs. Obviously, there are instances where those are warranted.
I trimmed the start of unnecessary fluff, and therefore: new timestamps!
0:19 Fallacy of Composition
0:29 Fallacy of Division
0:39 The Gambler's Fallacy
0:47 Tu Quoque (Who Are You To Talk?)
1:06 Strawman
1:19 Ad hominem
1:35 Genetic Fallacy
Correction: 1:43 Important clarification: fallacious appeal to authority is when you assume someone’s claims about [bacon] are valid in spite of the fact that they are in fact a [cheese] expert.
However, it is also a fallacy to assume that just because someone is an expert on [bacon] that they will always be factually accurate when talking about [bacon], especially if they do not provide evidence.
1:43 Fallacious Appeal To Authority
2:02 Red Herring
2:21 Appeal to Emotion
2:35 Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)
2:39 Appeal to Tradition
2:43 Appeal to Nature
2:51 Appeal to Ignorance
3:03 Begging the Question
3:19 Equivocation
3:37 False Dichotomy (Black or White)
3:47 Middle Ground Fallacy
3:56 Decision Point Fallacy (Sorites Paradox)
4:16 Slippery Slope Fallacy
4:33 Hasty Generalisations (Anecdotes)
4:52 Faulty Analogy
5:01 Burden of Proof
5:30 Affirming the Consequent
5:57 Denying the Antecedent
6:09 Moving the Goalposts
6:22 False Cause (and Texas Sharpshooter)
6:41 Loaded Question
6:48 No True Scotsman
6:57 Personal Incredulity
7:05 The Fallacy Fallacy
You missed one;
3:36 “Eejit”
your example of strawman is not very good mainly because there is virtualy no one advocating for less petroleum products(plastics,etc) which is what i assume you meant where as people in the current climate would prob assume you are misinformed and actually meant to say oil production which Joe Bidens administration has actively been preventing
but at the time you made the video it was prob a pretty good example
as an addition at the time of posting this gas is like 5 and half buck closing on 6
Thanks for the clarification!
I would love to be a “cheese expert”
I remember learning about these sorts of fallacies in my rhetoric class, and then the next unit was "now that we know the different types of fallacies, here's where we learn how to use them to sound persuasive"
Wait, so you learned how to be an evil politician?
@@avivastudios2311 Eristics my dude
@@avivastudios2311 That's obviously a loaded question, indicating that there are actually good politicians
@tedagent - it’s the same way in the legal field.
They teach about the constitution but all the teacher ways to get around it in America.
@@_jpg Not really. There are good politicians. It just depends on what we mean by good ...
The fallacy fallacy is so important and so often forgotten. Just because you discover a fallacy in someones reasoning, it doesn't necessarily invalidates their point, it only means that the reasoning they used to arrive at their conclusion is flawed.
It doesn't mean they are wrong. It means we can't _rely_ on their being right and should reject their ideas until the re-evaluate their position using rigorous logic. What you are proposing has literally gotten people killed in the real world and is utterly disastrous thinking.
@@j.f.fisher5318 ... What?
@@j.f.fisher5318 would you be so kind as to elaborate what I was proposing, that would be so utterly disastrous?
It does in a sense invalidate their point LMFAO. The very concept of a dialectic is to propose logically valid and or consistent point, so if someone's argument is predicated on a fallacy, that invalidates their argument, however, it doesnt make their conclusion or point actually incorrect
yeah, you can make some mistakes in a math problem and still get the right answer. Buuut, that usually involves going back, inspecting all of the steps along the way and then maybe solving it again
This actually a list of 31 reasons why it's pointless to engage in an argument on reddit.
Or Facebook
Or Twitter
Or UA-cam
Thumbs up to everyone above! LOL
Bahahahaha that and the incels
This is why I stopped debating with people in general. People will tell you that "they are great debaters" and that "they always leave their opponent speechless" and then will mindlessly start spamming fallacies with zero regurosity. Suddenly, when I ask for rigutosity, they don't wanna debate anymore.
It seems to me that people (including myself) don't know almost anything. We navigate reality with our schemas and concepts but when the real substantial knowledge is very little! Just my experience. I think that natural wisdom is a different thing, if you know what I mean :)
When we are put on the spot and questioned for our real knowledge, it can often fall short. I'm speaking of myself of course....
0:33 Fallacy of Composition
0:42 Fallacy of Division
0:52 The Gambler's Fallacy
1:00 Tu Quoque (Who Are You To Talk?)
1:19 Strawman
1:32 Ad hominem
1:49 Genetic Fallacy
1:56 Fallacious Appeal To Authority
2:15 Red Herring
2:34 Appeal to Emotion
2:48 Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)
2:52 Appeal to Tradition
2:56 Appeal to Nature
3:04 Appeal to Ignorance
3:16 Begging the Question
3:32 Equivocation
3:50 False Dichotomy (Black or White)
4:00 Middle Ground Fallacy
4:09 Decision Point Fallacy (Sorites Paradox)
4:29 Slippery Slope Fallacy
4:46 Hasty Generalisations (Anecdotes)
5:05 Faulty Analogy
5:14 Burden of Proof
5:43 Affirming the Consequent
6:10 Denying the Antecedent
6:22 Moving the Goalposts
6:35 False Cause (and Texas Sharpshooter)
6:54 Loaded Question
7:01 No True Scotsman
7:10 Personal Incredulity
7:18 The Fallacy Fallacy
thank you. this comment is underrated
AISHWARYA DEVI RAJAVEL Indeed
Gia Sharie Indee
this was already in the description
thanks
What I found interesting was that I took an advertising class and the logic back to back.
Ends up all the fallacies in the logic class are nearly the same as advertising techniques in the advertising class.
For instance: The logic class will point out the falsehood of bandwagoning, where the advertising class teaches you to tell people to join the bandwagon!
Well duh ! That's like saying the demolition class teaches you the exact opposite of the construction class 😁
@@TheNefastor Well, not the exact opposite, both have similar concepts, demolition is more or less tearing something down safely, so both might tell you fire safety
@@determinedhelicopter2948 what do you mean, "safely" ? 😉
Yes, because marketing and everyone involved are literal satans and should be ostracised from society.
@@TheNefastor Reducing the risk as much as physically/logistically possible
Wow. Having grown up surrounded by fallacy laden arguments, I thought I had found clever ways to avoid them. Turns out many of the clever ways are just different fallacies.
I've actually just embraced the fallacies that I do know... except for the straw man. By using them, I can accomplish a few things. First, I can be prepared for how I think the other person would (or should contest my points). Second, if I use enough of them, my opponents will get overwhelmed and not be able to properly contest my point, if they choose to contest it at all at that point. In casual conversations, a lot of people just jokingly say that I'm right and move on.
they will get worse. he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
dude everyone has grown up with fallacy laden arguments😂
@@commander8625 Isn’t that gish galloping?
@@hiddenharmonicssystemforwi4484 it is, this is textbook Gish galloping
I heard there was once an interview with Frank Zappa. The interviewer was this vietnam vet who lost a leg in the war and was notorious for giving guests a hard time.
First thing he said was "I guess your long hair makes you a girl." . Zappa instantly replied: "I guess your wooden leg makes you a table."
what a legend
Yes!
Making something out of nothing to push your narrative!
Self righteous people do this all the time!
ahaha this is genius
Somehow I think that would've impressed the interviewer rather than bothered him.
😂😂😂😂🔥🔥🔥🔥
Let's not forget the "last word" fallacy -- if I get the last word, it means that I was right (at least in my own mind).
I'm not sure the internet could survive without this one.
Bray watt's brother you are because he uses the same sur name
@@handsomerat5926 Or sometimes people are just done arguing with fools. Can’t really tell that from ones own perspective.
@@handsomerat5926 Unfortunately the most convincing argument against basic etiquette is to converse with a fool.
@@handsomerat5926 It was just the shortest way I could think to phrase it. All it meant was that talking to people who are incapable of or unwilling to correcting their logic inspires one to rudeness very quickly. After a while, you give up having a civilized conversation, and either leave without further comment or descend into angry ranting.
@@handsomerat5926 Fair enough.
When I was younger, I use to argue with people in hoping to find truth. It didn't matter to me if I ended up being wrong. But as I got older I started to realize a lot of people don't argue to find truth. They just argue to be right
The complete opposite happens a fair bit too and is equally as frustrating. People just conceding their point immediately upon being challenged to avoid the argument. I want to know how they got to that conclusion! But instead of reasoning it out to me all I get is "No, you're right, forget I said anything." At least its over quickly I guess
@@HeroGuy3 Oh its so frustrating when you want someone to explain their opinions and they just refuse and concede that they were wrong. Like no im not saying you are necessarily wrong I just want to know how to reached the conclusion.
btw, is it a fallacy or just a "flaw" that a lot of people these days feel offended when you point out a mistake/suggest-them-an-improvement? "you pointed out my error, ergo you must hate me" (i ain't sure if it's a variant of the black/white mentality or just not understanding the process of growth)
@@HeroGuy3 i feel called out and i'm not sure how to feel
Cool story, realised that already, without the Hollywood involved.
One very important thing to remember about fallacies. Pointing out a fallacy is not unto itself a counter-argument, it merely exposes a potential flaw in some part of what the other person has said. Critically even with a fallacy an argument can still be generally valid if the fallacy is removed; for example hyperbole and exaggeration removed from an argument can still leave a completely valid argument.
I think that was her last point...
@@TheOmegaXicor Literally, yes, you're right, the fallacy fallacy. Just because the method is wrong, the conclusion may be correct or incorrect.
The problem with fallacies isn't that they ensure you're wrong. It's that they make your thinking unreliable and therefore usually wrong. (Since there are more incorrect conclusions than correct ones, etc.)
And literally, a fallacious argument cannot be valid. By definition, it's invalid. It may have the correct conclusion but you should junk the argument and look for a valid one.
But usually someone who commits basic fallacial reasoning frequently doesn't _have_ a valid argument. It's hard to take someone seriously when all their online comments lead with read herrings, tu quoqe, or appeals to authoritiy.
@@Caseytify Agreed. Fallacies are a strong indicator that the person using them doesn't have anything worth listening to but not a guarantee that they're wrong. Such people may get things right by coincidence, rare but possible.
Worth remembering that valid arguments may still be entirely wrong, because the premises are wrong but the form is correct, while sound arguments must be correct.
@@Caseytify The issue is that the internet has lead to an era of absurd pedantry, where people will try hard to find any basis that someone is technically wrong, with the explicit intent of invalidating what they have said regardless of relevance. In my own merely anecdotal cases I've rarely seen someone call out a fallacy by name for any other reason.
Aside from that any form of hyperbole or straw man is an area to be careful about, because often even if the exaggeration is removed the point remains. People love to add emphasis.
“Never argue with stupid people - they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
-- Mark Twain
you don't really need to argue with them, you simply need to make them speak to their intentions.
This is an example of appeal to authority fallacy, just because mark twain said it, doesn't make it true
@@cv4809 thanks, we never really understood what a quote was.
He just said that because he didn't want people to argue with him.
@@dtkedtyjrtyj Did it work?
There's also the appeal to being unique: "Stand out from the crowd by buying this product!" or "Everyone else believes it so it must be wrong!"
And the appeal to gender insecurity - this is what proper men/women do/look like etc. I've got a feeling there are or will be LGBQT examples too.
@@simonhumby323 What... that's not a fallacy?
@@Nana-wi4gi Really it's kinda a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy. "No true man/woman would do/look like that."
@@Nana-wi4gi it's basically the opposite from the op from what I'm understanding. The need to fit in, per se
Ive nicknamed that one the 'not like other girls' fallacy
I am just working on a thesis about fallacies and this video made me incredibly happy. You've done a great job here.
I wish everyone knew these fallacies before engaging in debates.
I've also found that taking courses in statistics and psychology seem to have helped me make stronger arguments.
Never debate - the Gish-gallop is real. The better debater wins, not the facts.
Fake news!
Thats my response to all your perfectly logical argument.
@Solitaire and left wingers
@Solitaire that’s a fallacy lol
@Sentinel Those who do have something to say are not true ones! ;)
I've always been a fan of the sunk cost fallacy. Learning about it has actually saved me a lot of time that I would have otherwise wasted.
I totally abuse the sunken cost fallacy to have people stay longer in the casino I work in.
@@Squeekysquid It isn't always insidious though. It has its moments.
@@Squeekysquid All good.
This is a hard one to apply sometimes. It’s only fallacious if it’s actually worth it to abandon your current strategy and that’s difficult to measure in a lot of situations.
This is the best response to people that say, "Never give up." In my opinion, if you take piano lessons once a week and practice 10 hours a day everyday, but still play the piano poorly, then you should quit. You spent too much time, energy, and money into something and you aren't getting a good return on investment.
If people say that you already spent so much time practicing and it would be a waste to quit now, you can tell them that they are using the sunk cost logical fallacy.
This video sums up what its like talking to my parents
Why do I have to do this?
Because I said so.
@@davidkippy101 as aggravating as the "because I said so" of childhood is, it's a cake walk compared to dealing with delusional/conspiracy-nut parents for multiple decades until they pass away :(
ahahh.. yup! and my favorite one " because it's just the way it is" it's the way it was, and there fore it should be the way it is.
Why do so many people think their parents are idiots and that they know everything? I am not saying this because you prove it to be true I’m just asking because your comment inspired the thought and reminded me of it.
I feel the same about your parents.
"Here, take this belladonna, it's very natural!"
Me: "What's 'belladonna'?" *Googling occurs*
'Atropa belladonna, commonly known as belladonna or deadly nightshade, is a poisonous perennial herbaceous plant in the nightshade family Solanaceae...'
"Oh noes..."
You saved me a few seconds there, thanks!
Well... it has a medical use in certain quantities. At least back in the day, when they cured fevers with mercury and such :D
When I was a very low-ranking member of the military, I was attending a seminar about management and leadership. Halfway through the lecture, I raised my hand to ask a question about some of the speaker's assertions. In response, the instructor condescendingly asked, "Who are YOU to question me about management theory?"
I replied, "Well since you asked - I recently completed a masters degree in management at Park University, so I think I know a little about it." (Then the audience immediately burst into laughter.)
He was attempting a fallacious appeal to authority, but I trumped him with my own fallacious appeal to authority.
Ah yes, the good old my fallacy is bigger than your fallacy.
@@funkyflames7430 Sometimes you have to beat people with their own weapons.
E.g. yesterday my boyfriend conplained about me using an English word in a sentence in our language and he said "We have such a beautiful language. Why do you have to use English words??". Afterwards, he went gaming and talked to friends on Discord and gamer language is full of English words in I guess all languages. So I memorised all the words derived from other languages (mostly English of course) that he used to tell him later. Also, I told him about all the normal words in our language that are actually derived from e.g. Latin that he used. Yeah, maybe childish, but now he probably learnt quite a bit about our language and hopefully will refrain from calling me out when I use English words in the future.
@@solar0wind Do you happen to be Greek, btw?
@@yunarukami14 No, but the first two letters are the same😂 I'm German. We have language purists as well😅
@@solar0wind Oh, Germany is one of my favourite countries. Cheers! A friend from Indonesia
"Yoga teachers are not dietitians. Therefore, I should eat cake." I don't know, this logic seems very sound to me...
HoldTightAndPretendItsAPlan 🤣
HoldTightAndPretendItsAPlan Clearly wrong. You should not eat cake. You should send it to me to eat it on your behalf.
I need to think about that ...
... while I eat this cake.
@@grumpyoldman3458 Here, have my piece of cake too, so you can think about it longer, lol. While you're doing that I will be baking a second cake.
@@purplepeopleperson3815 Thanks.
I love fallacies. Or, more accurately, I love finding, exploring, and tabulating them like this! I read my first logic book in high school, A Rulebook for Arguments, and I learned MUCH more about good argumentation from the Appendix on fallacies in the back than I did from the rest of the book or even my collegiate logic classes. This was a fun reminder of that, thanks Jill.
After all, you have to be able to spot a bad argument before you can make a good one yourself! Or, 'if you only read one newspaper, read the enemy's.' Or . . . something like that, anyway. 😁
That's a good quote. Know any other good videos about fallacies?
@@avivastudios2311 I haven't really looked - they tend to pop up in my recommended viewing from time to time now that I've watched this one! 😄
Good lord I hope you're talking about participating in actual debate.
BecUse if this is about online arguements... then this is sooooo sad.
in the American presidential debates-- their should be both fact checking and fallacy referees
👏 👏 👏 👏
Go look in the mirror.
@@joee7850 what's your meaning?
@@rockwallaby550 It's the responsibility of the voter to decide for themselves which candidate is their best choice.
I assume you would want unbiased referees. How would they be chosen when it's damn near impossible to decide on Supreme Court Justices who are unbiased?
once you learn about the fallacies / learn to identify them
I guarantee, you will never be able to watch a high class political debate again.
Some people liked trump, some people didn't, honestly I never got that far, because he used so many logical fallacies I could barely even keep track of what he said (not saying his opponents didn't as well)
Title: 31 logical fallacies in 3 minutes
Alternative Title:
*Every type of crazy uncle in 3 minutes*
Or one super uncle in 3 minutes.
It's 8 minutes
Twitter and reddit in three minutes
@@zzzcocopepe I don't see many fallacies on Reddit. People there usually just say you're wrong and downvote you. That's not a logical fallacy, it's saying shut up and conform to the hive mind.
@@borucharnold9406 lol don't be contradictory
I had an acquaintence post a video of a nurse talking talking about why the Covid vaccines were bad (clearly an appeal to authority) I pointed out that there are Doctors who are also in the medical field who disagree with her. All sorts of idiocy ensued after that and I was called every name under the sun, goal posts were shifted, strawmen erected, it was pretty entertaining to see an adult that couldn't be challenged without having a literal tantrum.
The whole lockdown and vaccine campaign were a treasure trove of logical fallacies heaped upon us: appeal to authority, moving the goalpost, false cause, tu quoque...We all need these lessons to protect us from the authorities so hopefully they don't pull the wool over our eyes again.
In my opinion, You said the the key sentence... “It is good to point at what it is that makes meaningful discussions impossible” I appreciate that wording very much because you did not say point at who. Love that! Just one word makes a big difference.
Yep. She avoided the ad hominem fallacy there!
Chronological Snobbery (Opposite of Appeal to Tradition): Something is more valid because it is modern, newer.
This one should have been included as well
chronological snobbery is newer and therefore more valid
@@feanorofsunspear2320 if newer, more recent is ALL you got, it's still a fallacy.
That's just a non-sequitur, we don't really need to get more specific than that.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 Ok, Chronological Snobbery is newer, is more valid just because it's newer, hence a fallacy, gotcha
I think a classic example of Tu Quoque is when a sibling says “You’re not dad, [therefore I can not listen to you without consequence, and so you should just leave me alone].” Honoring your parents isn’t the only reason you should do what they say, for example if they’re telling you to look both ways.
Here is one that I've seen in real life.
"You're homophobic because you don't like guys in croptops. Gay guys wear croptops so not liking gay guys in croptops makes you homophobic."
Straw man, black and white, no true Scotsman, etc.
@@TomorrowWeLive homophobia is real. It is a bad thing.
@@TomorrowWeLive You're kidding, right?
@@junimo-hexed Oh look you attracted a homophobe
Also- not liking guys in crop tops can be homophobic DEPENDING on your reasoning. If you just don't think it looks good obviously that's fine. But if you think it's a sign of the impending destruction of western society, there's probably something a little deeper there lol
I'd say it could be an indication of whether or not a person is homophobic, based on the largely overlapping Venn diagram of homophobes and people who think men shouldn't wear crop tops
edit: grammar
"even a clock that's stopped is right twice a day" ...a clock that's one minute slow is never right
but they're close and any decent human being can compensate for the slight inaccuracy.
Well. Actually time & space get faster every time the time passes, by the relativity theory it will get slow until it resets and get perfeclty balanced has all thing in nature should be.
Well move few kilometers to the west, and now it's always right.
Deivison Carvalho time and space get faster every time time passes...? What
@@stm7810 dear oh dear oh dear ..must be tough to have no sense of humour
I love how you used a dog refference for red herring, as the term derrives from using the red pickled herring meat to try and distract training hound dogs so they learn not to lose a scent.
'The fallacy fallacy'. The fallacy that a fallacy makes a fallacy a fallacy.
Checkmate.
Hey Jill, I thought this was great! As a long time Christian, I can see how many (er... maybe all) occur within my own life. I can be bettter! Thanks for helping me on my journey.
As a long term atheist, I can see how many occur within my own life.
I want that comma to DIE. But it would dilute mine intention.
God bless you.
Pointing out logic fallacies has its own risks. I once had a continuous argument with a religious type. His arguments were often like "if A then B" where neither A nor B were true, and the logic by which B follows from A was also faulty. But when I tried to answer like "Even if A is true, B doesn't follow" his reply would be like "Here! You admit that A is true!"
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....maybe.
Your friend's argument is Boolean in nature. If A is true and B is true then A and B are true etc etc.
If Elephants are grey and battleships are grey, then elephants must be battleships and battleships of course are elephants, everyone knows that.
So, basically the hattrick of being wrong :)
I find "proves too much" to be a good way to point out bad premises or arguments (show that the same premise and argument can also "prove" absurd conclusions). But that probably only works when the audience has at least a basic understanding of formal logic...
I feel this so hard. I tried to create a debate club in the eighth grade, but it got disbanded immediately because the only people that joined were some boys that didn’t take it seriously and they all would only take the same side (straight up refused to debate the other side). I ended up being the only one on the other side, arguing with 7 other people, all of which doing this exact thing
you cant argue with stupid
We're in luck that no logical fallacy is to be found in Aquinas argument from efficient causality for the existance of God!
A few things that may not fit the definition of a fallacy but are often parts of people making arguments in bad faith:
The steady-step fallacy, related to the slippery slope fallacy. Just because something can stop at a point, does not mean it will stop at that point.
The Definitional fallacy: someone defines a term a particular way and expects all others to accept that definition as true.
And finally for now, The conflation of personal contempt with ad-hominem. Essentially, someone can say that their opponent in an argument is evil, and that their argument is wrong, as two separate things.
See:
“Your argument is wrong because I hate you” (fallacious)
“Your argument is wrong and I hate you.” (Not-fallacious)
My least favorite: Personal Incredulity.
I live with a narcissist. Aside from the many delights associated with that, the one I find most irritating, probably because I have to deal with it most, is that if this said person has an opinion, it isn't their opinion, but rather, it is THE ONLY OPINION, RENDERING ALL OTHER OPINIONS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY INCORRECT.
Oh, yeah? Well, that's what you think. jk ;)
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. hehe
well.....
maybe they are always right.....
Frankly that just sounds the the definition of an opinion. I mean why would you have an opinion that even you don’t believe to be correct?
@@Applest2oApples the problem is when it's about subjective opinions, like food or movies or art.
I used to date a narcissist and his incessant proclamations on the "right" books, movies, etc were the most obvious and annoying of his many symptoms.
generally narcissists do not improve or grow up, they get worse.
run while you still have legs.
I find it very hard to believe there are 31 whole fallacies that can be explained in just 8 minutes. I mean, I'm an expert in fish farming, therefore I cannot believe that you, someone who talks about movies on UA-cam, could know them. I mean, if that were the case, obviously, you think the world should be ruled by UA-cam reviewers, and you can see how much that makes me sad, so you should stop. :)
What?! A real Jill fan would never write such nonsense! It is long been known that almost all of the channel's subscribers aren't you, and since I believe that you are wrong, and I am not you, I'm in the right to say that you wrote nonsense.
You know, because you disagree with me, you must be the most evil person in the world.
xingcat How can I be evil if I don't kick puppies?
I love you guys.
There are no good comments on UA-cam, so this is not UA-cam.
My mom (no longer with us) once said all unions are bad because this one woman (union leader or member?) was trying to extort thousands of dollars from a small business the union was involved with and was also lazy and mean. I think there were at least three there? Thank you again!
Let me see if I got them right:
Hasty generalisation - Your mom concluded generally that all unions are bad based on the limited experience she had with this (probaly) very few unions
Fallacy of composition - Believing the entire union was bad based off of a single individual who was part of it
Ad hominem - Attacking the woman based off of her traits ('lazy' and 'mean') rather than arguing for why her actions were bad
7:09 My favorite argument that I have ever heard is the one that went like this:
Person 1: People usually base their world view on logic, facts are a great way to convince people.
Person 2: Would you like to read this article, I recently saw on Face Book that says otherwise, that human beings are naturally predisposed to cognitive dissonance and that proving someone wrong usually makes them more positive that they are right.
Person 1: Even if you showed me a study, I still wouldn't believe that.
It took me a minute to get the joke because I wasn't sure who the speakers were, but that is really funny.
Some of the world's most beautiful irony.
OK, this IS hilarious
'a study' is only evidence for or against a position.. but is it enough to prove or disprove the position? Studies can be flawed. It should take multiple studies that come to the same conclusion or show significantly similar end results/data to actually prove or disprove a position. A single study can be used as a compelling argument, however, if the source of the study is reputable and not biased in it's methodology.
I'd like to add one...the fallacy of thinking you can use reason to show someone that their argument is based on a logical fallacy. People who rely on logical fallacies to prove their point will never see that their logic is flawed. That's basically why you never bother arguing with the loud and chaotic voices on the internet.
my 'favorite' fallacy would have to be the 'starving children in Africa' fallacy- you know, the combination of red herring and appeal to emotion that tries to both shut the person up and make them feel guilty about bringing up the argument in the first place (ie "those lazy, selfish retail workers should stop whining about how low the minimum wage is- don't they know there are starving children in Africa?!?")
Fuck the whiny minimum wage retails workers. Fuck the people who support raising the minimum wage.
This is known as the fallacy of "relative privation." Also sometimes known ans the "Gaza Defense" by pretty much nobody except me and Grey Carter.
I actually didn't know that- thanks for the information!
This is a favourite in my group of friends. The official name is Appeal to Worse Problems but I think the name African Orphan Fallacy is evocative and gets across the basic idea.
"Stop complaining that I kidnapped you and tied you to a chair. I have given you food and there are children starving in Africa."
"So what if you have an abusive parents. There are other who don't have parents nor a home"
"Who cares that you are being bullied in school. Many girls like you in Middle East can't even go to school."
Don't know why I got this recommended but thanks youtube
I`m deeply mistrustful of Google and facebook and the other tech companies, but damn I get some good videos recommended to me sometimes.
Abdellah Id Abdellah: false.
@@eckdavid2472 It's based on your history, they're figuring out what you'd click on.
Same tbh
same
my gosh this comment section is rather charming compared to the rest of youtube I think ill stay a while and have some tea and biscuits.
Same =)
Same here it's a shame this stuff wasn't taught in school. Instead of being taught the Prussian education / mimicry system using the servile and utilitarian arts. I wish I was taught the liberal arts instead. So I have been teaching myself for the last year about logical fallacies and sophistry and a bit of NLP but all I have is a few PDFs from universities. Can anyone point me to any good resources please on logical fallacy and maybe some stuff on syllogism and enthymemes thank you
So you can't have tea and biscuits if the comment section isn't charming?
@@kenwalter3892 that's an 'I-remembered-contrapostive-rule-but-use-it-wrong' fallacy.
+steve h v I would say it's taught, but not emphasized much.
4:14 _platypi_ is actually the incorrect plural. If you wanna stay true to it's Greek origins then it's _platypodes_ but realistically it's just _platypuses_ innit
I like videos about critical thinking Jill. I know your whole channel has changed however it would be nice to see you completely deep dive into critical thinking. I love this stuff. And you're really good at it
Perhaps the solution is somewhere in the middle: Eat Carrot Cake.
Oddly, and for reasons that I can't explain, carrot cake has more calories than chocolate cake...I guess depending on the brand(?).
@@hugehappygrin Yes, but they're mostly from fiber, so you only count the net.
@@MalloonTarka My favourite.
Sometimes is, sometimes isn't. A says this sidewalk is safer, B says the opposite sidewalk is safer. C takes the middle ground and dies.
@@juanausensi499 Well, unless there is a median down the road that C can safely walk on. I know, the median is not a sidewalk, but still.
i need a video about things like these but for i dont know what youd call them but things like guilt tripping, lamp shading, gaslighting, etc, because some of those things are easy to do unintentionally or subconsciously and itd be good to point them out so you can catch yourself or others doing them
This should be taught every year in school and should be common sense.
There is no such thing as common sense...
At Norwegian universities the first course you take is called examen philosophicum (ex.phil.). The course focuses on philosophy, logic and argumentation. This course was established in 1675 and have continued to this day.
It used to be part of basic education up until about 100 years ago ( see the Trivium ) when industrial public education was established. They didn't want an intelligent and articulate population that would question the decisions of their "superiors". It is now reserved for the elite schools or elective classes in college/universities.
@@jarls5890 It's been a thing since 1675? That's a really long time!
The sad thing is common sense doesn't seem to be as common these days.
Burden of proof fallacy is my pet peeve because we see it in action all the time. "Prove God doesn't exist" is one of the common ones encountered. To which I usually reply "Prove my invisible pink Unicorn doesn't exist" 😂
Same thing with prove god does exist
@@FirstnameLastname-bx4zk sorry, what do you mean?
@@ryry854 They mean the fallacy works in both directions.
Theist: “God is real.”
Atheist: “Then prove it!”
Theist: “Can you prove that he isn’t? No, you can’t. So he must be real.”
I´m really adding to my friends live. When I came to visit them yesterday they were all sad, but you should have seen their happy faces when I was about to leave.
That one is awesome! What fallacy is that? The unsupported conclusion fallacy?
As mother used to say to me with undeniable logic - "Why do you want to wash those clothes? They'll just get dirty again".
Why do you want a haircut, it’ll just grow back again
I had to pause and rewind this video countless times because every fallacy presented made me stop and think, losing focus on the next one. Super good video
The burden of proof fallacy is by far one of my least favorites. I use it as an indicator that I should end the conversation immediately because I'm dealing with someone that firmly believes in nonsense and refuses to consider otherwise.
Oh my god, I did not even know about the Tu Quoque fallacy and I hear that shit all the time, but didn't know why I found myself skeptical of those statements!
Ugh...it's so frustrating when I find myself committing one of these, especially the fallacy fallacy. I'm generally fairly familiar with these fallacies overall, since I love to listen to debates and the like.
Since debates and philosophy lectures are entertainment to me, I kind of think of understanding these fallacies to be similar understanding tropes in fiction. (Cogs in the machine kind of thing, and I know that's not a fully encompassing analogy, but it works for my thoughts here.)
But as a result it can be easy for me to be dismissive of others when arguing or just generally disagreeing with someone and I notice one of these fallacies, since my stupid pattern-recognizing brain looks at that one piece of the argument and latches onto it way more than it should. And then as I'm thinking everything over later, I have to cringe at myself. :/
the fact that you're even able to fully realize your own faults should make you proud of yourself :) not many people do (from my own experience at least)
wow you are so big brained
Could you tell me where you watch the debates / the kinds of debates you watch? I have trouble finding actual good ones instead of two idiotic politicians arguing when they're both in the wrong lol
Duru Buyukbasaran Hi, I’m hoping to learn more about debate myself and I’m not sure where to start. I see you’ve had trouble looking for many good debates. Could you recommend any good examples that you have found? :7
@@durubuyukbasaran9676 I'll watch most anything, but i started out since i wanted to get into law so watched andd read a lot of court stuff. Legal Eagle is a decent channel for that, and more generally speaking id check the World Universities Debating Championships
Onision will use all 31 fallacies in the span of a minute when debating...
Ya, but, there are Atheist that can beat them at it by at least five seconds.
JRTjr01 so can most people honestly, atheists can do it, religious nuts can do it, omission lives to do it.
Fearghus Keitz preach 🙏
Onionsan doesn’t make fallacies
*Y’HEAR*
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
u make more sense than my english teacher ever could... Thank you so much!!
"Never argue with Mark Twain because Mark Twain is infallible." - Mark Twain
Can't argue with that, lol.
I thought Samuel Clemens said that . ?
Oh, so you're saying we're idiots if we don't read all his books, is that what you're saying?
Mark Twain was a novelist, and his real name was Samuel Clemens. Therefore, all novelists are Samuel Clemens.
@@jasonbungard7484 MY OPINION CANNOT BE CHANGED!
As you get older and get more experience you start to learn that the slippery slope fallacy is not always a fallacy. Sometimes it actually a logical progression that young people cannot see because they lack experience.
It's always a fallacious argument, as in, does not make logical sense. Doesn't mean that people don't actually slide down the slope frequently, or even most of the time! It can still be good advice even if not absolutely 100% true for everyone all the time.
The slippery slope is still a fallacy. It may give good advice, but it still doesn't make logical sense, thus making it a fallacy.
But there is a test. If the slippery slope can be stopped at any time is the test. So just because you are older does not NECESSARILY mean you are wiser. What fallacy is that?
She did point out that a statement could still be true even if it has a fallacy in it.
Isn't the original comment a hasty conclusion or anecdote?
Fallacious Appeal to Authority:
Dream bringing an Expert in Astrophysics to prove that he didn't cheat in Minecraft.
my least favorite is the strawman. pretty much every time someone tries to explain what people on the other side of the political spectrum they try to make them sound worse than they are. i suspect that this is a significant part of todays hyperpartisan world
It doesn't help that people from both the left and the right live up to the strawman image that the other side paints. That's another unfortunate consequence of a hyperpartisan world; people get so polarized that they fulfill the stereotype (on both sides of the spectrum).
I think she got the description of "Argument from Authority" and "Burden of Proof" wrong.
1. Proving "2+2=4" by pointing out that the greatest mathematicians in all of history said so is STILL not a valid argument.
2. In her ghost example, there were TWO claims: "I am a ghost" and "No, you're not". Both are claims that require a valid argument, not simply the first one.
Middle Ground Fallacy:
Some people like their hot pizza 🥵
Some people like their refrigerated pizza 🥶
So clearly the best pizza is at room temperature 😋
Brad Bowers Thanks! ☺️
The Mixed Fallacy: Some people don't like sausage on their pizza, some people don't like pepperoni on their pizza, therefore TO THE STAKE WITH THEE!
Everyone knows hot pizza is 20% better than cold.
@@AllenFreemanMediaGuru assuming cold is 16 degrees at hot is 40 degrees and hot pizza is 20% better than cold pizza. that means 40-16=24 therefore 100% = 5 * 24 which means the perfect pizza temperature is 100+20 = 120 degrees.
Completely wrong: all pizza is good hot, cold or room temperature. The only preceding requirement is that it is not raw or frozen but has been cooked at some point before eating.
I've watched a few of these videos, I just stumbled upon them recently. I like how you guys always do the fallacy fallacy last.
UA-cam algorithm leading me to this video “You just enjoyed the Bear and Breakfast trailer, we think you’ll enjoyJill Bearup?” .... I really did ... but the irony is not lost on me that correlation does not imply causation here!
Just wanted to comment that my college is using this video as a resource for Critical Thinking courses. As a long-time fan of the channel, this made me happy. Cheers!
This was an epic rundown, presented so beautifully. Thank you!
"therefore i should eat cake" -Marie Antoinette, probably
4:46 personally i call this one "Survivor's Bias"
That would be quite right, survivorship bias is definitely a case of selection bias!
Okay but what is the name of the fallacy that basically goes
A: "I dislike this for such and such reasons"
B: "Well you can't do better, so who are you to judge?"
Tu quoque - I think it's around the 1:00 mark in this video
jai oh really? I got the vibe that Tu Quoque was more of "you can't tell me to do this because you dont" but I guess it still applies. Thanks!
@@MrShyguyRS -- "Tu Quoque" means "You, too". Example: Person A: "You just told a lie" B: "Well you lie, too" This says nothing about the about the case in point, which is the veracity of the case in point.
I don't totally disagree with tu quoque fallacy and sometimes fallacies can fit into more than 1 category.
An example like this could also be a black and white fallacy.
A: "I dislike my boss because they are incompetent."
B: "Well you couldn't do any better."
Subject B implies that there are only 2 options: that the incompetent boss or subject A be the boss. In reality, any number of people could be the boss and might be better than subject A or the current boss.
Right, tu quoque and black and white...
Depending on the case, looks to me like it could also be ad hominem, genetic fallacy or fallacious appeal to authority.
This video had me giggling with delight. subbed!
😁 thank you kindly!
Who says women aren't funny?
@@Templetonq I do.
@@Licw-Luxus You're lucky I'm not an SJW. I could have you blocked for that.
This was a great video, well explained and concise. What I would like to see though, over and above this, is sophisticated examples of these fallacies in action, because in practice they exist in politics ad nauseum and are sometimes glaringly obvious, but other times quite subtle. Also, these concepts are often piled together to appear more forcible.
I love your Irish/Scottish accent. It's satisfying to hear you talk
'highever'
😂😂😂😂😂💔
So - is it Irish or Scottish?
There are similarities, like there are similarities berween New York and Bostonian, but Irish and Scots are from different islands.
I'll help out - it's the accent of someone from the northern part of Ireland (probably Northern Ireland) that has had a decent education and training in accents.
And BRIAN
New Zealand? You're out of your depth!
Its important to remember that a slipper slope argument is only a fallacy if the speaker cannot demonstrate how the steps in the slope will cause the end effect.
But the majority of the time a slippery slope fallacy is used is in a situation where it’s impossible to demonstrate that each step will be a certainty. The slippery slope almost always asserts that “if we do ...... then people will ..... and that of course will result in people ” - and even if it seems likely that people will react a certain way in response to something - it’s impossible to prove it strongly enough to prevent this from being a fallacious argument. The only way you could prove your slippery slope argument strongly enough to avoid it being a fallacy is in a purely mechanical system where the laws of science make it absolutely certain that the chain reaction described by your “slippery slope” would most certainly occur - however, in any situation like that, the point could be argued (and proven) much more effectively without needing to resort to using a slippery slope analogy.
@@Tenly2009 I'd just like to point out that you said "slippery slope fallacy" instead of "slippery slope argument". It is a fallacy to conflate these two, and therefore your entire argument is wrong. :)
Joe Radford FALLACY FALLACY lol
Jacob Power •••
A logical fallacy is only a logical fallacy if it somehow breaks down or subverts reason .
I've found that the most dangerous fallacies are the appeal to authority, the questionable / inadequately supported premise, and suppressed evidence . These are the ones used by the State to do stuff like herd us off to war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
To her credit, she did just what you're suggesting. She said if you can stop at any point on the "slope" then it's a fallacy (with the implication being if you can't stop you have a proof, or at least that was what I assumed).
Causation is not correlation was always my favourite, complicated by the fact that I could rarely remember the words, beyond that they started with a 'c', and so had to keep looking it up.
It's possible that it has finally stuck, now, like remembering the name of the actor who played the Marquis de Carabas, Patterson Joseph, without using the crime writer, James Patterson, as a cue, but time will tell if it has...
"If it barks it's a dog"
Humans and parrots mimicking barking-
👁👄👁
I'm a livin' in a box
I'm a livin' in a cardboard box
I'm a livin' in a box...
If you sing every syllable as notes you could have 7/8, 9/8 and then 7/8 and you now have jazz.
What’s this a reference to?
@@jamesgl ua-cam.com/video/svVaEWQaoSo/v-deo.html
Ah, the 80s, when a band's biggest hit was the name of the band:
Living in a Box by Living in a Box
Talk Talk by Talk Talk
In a Big Country by Big Country
Bad Religion by Bad Religion
I'm sure there's more, that's the ones that come to mind.
@@rdaveh Bad Company by Bad Company
"...therefore I should eat cake." Yup, putting my shoes on, need cake now.
False Dichotomy: every discussion between Star Wars fans on the internet.
Also: No True Star Wars Fan, I mean Scotsman
I am no true Star Wars fan, because I am a Star Trek fan.
A lot of these is how my sister argues, especially moving the goalposts.
This is good but damn alot to remember and hard to pick up at times
Right? All I've got so far is that you can never prove or unprove anything exists,you shouldn't believe something written in a book if it says in said book believe the book is always true and you can't use someone else's inexperience to stop them from giving you advice. Honestly,my brain feels like it's trying to understand time travel,paradoxes and ex machinas.
Minor correction: an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy can refer to an expert in the same field, not just an expert in some other field. Being an expert doesn't make a person correct, even in that person's field of expertiese. [edit: apparently my expertise in typing failed me]. What you're talking about is an appeal to *false* authority.
A lawyer friend told me that an expert is someone from more than 75 miles away.
In that case, Appeal to Authority isn't a fallacy. Going "I don't understand this, so I should trust the knowledge of an expert in the field" is common sense. But it does rely on said expert being right.
@@1987MartinT nah, it’s still a fallacy. Being an expert doesn’t make anyone correct. It may increase the likelihood of being correct, but it doesn’t guarantee it.
Trust me, I’m an expert.
@@willerwin3201 Like I said: it does rely on said expert being right.
But, yes, an expert on a subject, while not guaranteed to be right, is more likely to be right about something concerning said subject than someone who isn't an expert on the subject.
imo appealing to (citing) an authority is a fallacy if the implication is that this provides PROOF. It’s not a fallacy if it only strengthens one’s case.
There's one fallacy I really despise that wasn't on this list: double standard. Applying a certain set of rules to one thing, but not to another.
Also, special pleading. Allowing an exception to the system for one specific phenomenon.
And another one, circular reasoning. A chain of arguments that ultimately lead back where you started, which has a lot of overlap with Begging the Question.
The problem with Double Standards is that the people holding them are usually completely aware of the hypocrisy and absolutely do not care.
That stopped clock analogy was excellent
Excellent - more of this please. People need to understand how they are lied to and manipulated by our media / politics.
And even more of them need to understand how they are constantly preventing themselves from understanding anything. ;)
People want the world to be simple. They don't want to have to deal with complexity and ambiguity. Or compromise.
Easy way to detect strawman fallacy, a lot of times it starts with "so what you are saying is..." Essentially rephrasing their thoughts to change their narrative for it to be easier to attack
Humptydumptyism = changing established meanings of terms to support your argument.
This is super common with transphobes. They really hate that the definitions of sex and gender are not the same thing.
@@ceilingeye yeah.. Also for people that are racist against white people and women sexist against men.
The left likes to change the meaning of words and various terms to suit their own agenda.
Jordan "it depends what you mean by" Peterson
Baghuul give me one example. One.
Because every right wing transphobe i’ve ever met likes to change dictionary definitions of sex and gender.
The youtube Fallacy: "UA-cam suggested this video to me at 2AM, therefore this video must be barely interesting garbage". Wrong!
Hi! New sub here. Love this video! I gotta say I love goalpost moving. It’s fun to be faced with someone who pulls it constantly, and just talking them into running in circles.
Bennie Saying Things
I have a friend like this,
*every single argument we have* ends in him saying “why does it even matter?”
Another logical fallacy I know is circular reasoning, the act to support your reason by restating your claim, like "wind is invisible because I can't see it. The reason why I can't see it because it's wind." It makes your statement more clear, but doesn't prove your point in any way.
I need to watch this video like 10 times
Minor nitpick with Equivocation (3:19)
If it is just a matter of proper authority, then a deistic authority could turn off or change the law of gravity if they so choose.
Playing this at 75% speed was far less straining on my brain cells. Very interesting, though.
It's a bit high paced for the amount of information in it yes.
“Ooo don’t trust science it’s full of chemicals which are bad for you. Here, take this Bella Donna. It’s very natural.”🤣
I LOVE the "Begging the Question" fallacy example XD. Now I fully believe Zog the Great is infallible.
You forgot one I learned in school
Non Sequitur: Basically making a false judgement
"All the houses in the neighborhood are expensive; therefore they must be well made."
Example of a Non Sequitur:
" She didn't mention Non Sequitur fallacies in the video, therefore she must have forgotten about it"
* Mic drop *
@Shane :D kind of... a little bit, but not really (It's speculative, but not completely detached) :)
The same could be argued about the relationship between well built houses and their cost.
But that's not that crazy of an idea that expensive houses are well made. A non sequitur would be more like "all the houses in the neighbourhood are expensive so they must all have pools" wouldn't it? Idk
Let's see if I can get this right: A non sequitur, which is Latin for 'it does not follow', exists in 'Formal Fallacies' such as "affirming the consequent". Its premises may be true but the conclusion while also true, doesn't follow the premise.
For example:
All the houses in the neighborhood are expensive.
Penguins cannot fly.
Therefore, throwing hot oil on a policeman is a pretty bad idea.
Or the premises are true but the conclusion false:
The person who manages Lady Gaga is very wealthy.
Donald Trump is very wealthy.
Therefore, Donald Trump manages Lady Gaga.
As a logic device a non sequitur is usually more subtle, but as a literary device can be wildly absurd as they're often used for comedic purposes.
0:30
This would actually be true, the example you use, if we were talking about the scale. Like if you said the flat was literally 2 times smaller in scale, then yes one flats doors would be half the size, but when we talk about the size of a flat we’re talking about floor space obviously.
It’s a fine example just brings out the pedant in me
Ok, I should start saying "take this belladonna, is very natural" to people HAHAHAHA
My favorite fallacy is slippery slope because it's almost always announced by name ahead of time. "If we do X, then it will be a SlIpPeRy SLoPe and Y will happen"
Loved the video. Another common fallacy that could be added to the list is the "ad hitlerum", i.e. refuting an argument by associating it to either Hitler or the Nazis. Pretty much every internet debate is bound to have an ad hitlerum at some point.
"Aha! You said you are british in your argument! Who did the British colonize? The Indians! What do some Indians practice? Hinduism! What does Hinduism have as a symbol? The SWASTIKA!"
Godwin cautioned against using his "law" to indiscriminately attack any and all arguments that include associations with Hitler/NAZIs. Obviously, there are instances where those are warranted.
What do you mean? Calling someone "Hitler" or "Nazi" just because they don't agree with your argument? Or are you reffering to sth else?
More commonly known as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
My favourite response to an ad Hitlerum is to point out that Hitler was a dog lover.