It would've been nice if you had also included a clip where CNN/PBS/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/BBC TV hosts used the same Ad Hominem attack you showed in the Fox News clip.
Dave, Love this series on critical thinking. I sometimes have trouble identifying the fallacies fast enough to respond but these videos help hone that skill.
Both sides do this. I think David would get more credibility if he mentioned how “Orange Man Bad” is an ad hominem used all the time to discredit everything Trump says (even the few times he’s right) just because he said it.
Extremely well done video. It’s obvious that David is Left leaning with his own cognitive biases (Criticism of Jake shows your bias, but Tucker Carlson is a perfect example of someone using Ad Hom fallacy, etc) yet it doesn’t mean his analysis is incorrect. I admit, it’s hard to put away one’s cognitive biases. I wonder if David can? 🤔
I'm confused as to what your claim is. It is obvious, in as much as David has self professed, is left leaning. As far as I've been able to see, he has the ability to be aware of conscious and subconscious bias. The issue shouldnt be the label you take, but the malleability of your own ideas, if they are not sound. It is possible to put down and anchor of where you are in a sea of philosophies, and still look out for inconsistency in your position, and others at the same time.
So i'm getting to finish watching the critical thinking videos. then i'm gonna star to write up examples. I would like to know if any subscribers would like to weigh in ? share their own examples so we can discuss and learn. open to thoughts and suggestions.
I do not see how that is ad hominem. The comment "you are paranoid" relates directly to the argument that was made. A popular ad hominem is to call someone a racist.
The phrase "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you" comes to mind. Being very overly concerned about things in general doesn't make a point less valid.
It is because you have not argued why AI would be safe. One's paranoia has no bearing on whether or not AI is a danger to humanity. Sort of like how one's feelings have no bearing on whether or not a statement is racist.
It is a bad argument but not an ad hominem as it does not attack the person. The argument is that presenting such claims is paranoid. Nowhere does it touch the person but he would say it to anyone presenting such claims.
I get what you're saying but it's still easy to explain why an ad hominem loses the argument. By stating "You're paranoid!" intending that a claim is paranoid, you are merely trying to say that you aren't afraid, but that isn't a *reason* to be unafraid, so it doesn't address the claim. That's the problem with the fallacy -- it doesn't matter if the insult is hurtful, or if it's something you would always say.
Wouldn’t the advise to consider the source therefore be a circumstantial ad hominem? Example, if an oil company publishes research that shows climate change is not occurring due to burning petroleum. I know that ample evidence exists to show this research’s claim would be questionable, but to argue to look at the source seems wise, but not sound?
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBkj-AYYg7w/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one thing that people really should take to heart. Great series by the way David.
David is literally saving the world
DumbPunk Lol.
David...what's the matter with you? If you rule out the ad hominem, there go ninety-five percent of all internet debates!
Ragitsu
Good. Because 97% of internet debates are useless
That has validity, but I think we’ll all get by just fine without them.
randomflashbacks
"We're not worthy! We're not worthy!@
randomflashbacks
The French missionaries and explorers were coming here as early as the late 1600s?
Hallelujah!
I like how you exemplify the point by commenting on existing footage.
This miniseries isn't getting the attention it deserves. This information is invaluable. Great job David.
He makes some good points, but I can't take him seriously because he's on UA-cam .
I suspect that you're committing a logical fallacy there ...
It would've been nice if you had also included a clip where CNN/PBS/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/BBC TV hosts used the same Ad Hominem attack you showed in the Fox News clip.
I adore this series.
I love David desire to teach critical thinking. This is great .u have to respect a man like this . I was actually wondering about this fallacy.
Dave, Love this series on critical thinking. I sometimes have trouble identifying the fallacies fast enough to respond but these videos help hone that skill.
Both sides do this. I think David would get more credibility if he mentioned how “Orange Man Bad” is an ad hominem used all the time to discredit everything Trump says (even the few times he’s right) just because he said it.
Holy cow Tucker was incredible in that scene.
The tucker Carson think was a really good example. Dammn it makes him look so much worse. If thats possible
Just left brilliant, cool website! Great pairing!
Your politics are completely getting in the way of truth in this video. It’s sad, started out really informative.
Finally, someone said it.
Love this guy
Extremely well done video.
It’s obvious that David is Left leaning with his own cognitive biases (Criticism of Jake shows your bias, but Tucker Carlson is a perfect example of someone using Ad Hom fallacy, etc) yet it doesn’t mean his analysis is incorrect.
I admit, it’s hard to put away one’s cognitive biases. I wonder if David can? 🤔
I'm confused as to what your claim is.
It is obvious, in as much as David has self professed, is left leaning. As far as I've been able to see, he has the ability to be aware of conscious and subconscious bias.
The issue shouldnt be the label you take, but the malleability of your own ideas, if they are not sound.
It is possible to put down and anchor of where you are in a sea of philosophies, and still look out for inconsistency in your position, and others at the same time.
Boy, I like these. Super smart. Arm citizens with facts
Excellent
also just interrupt your opponent's defense by laughing her straight in the face, good way to win a debate
Ad Hominem: Because kids like to argue too.
There is another fallacy - assuming that just because someone used an ad hominem that they are automatically wrong.
Ad hominem ad hominem
The favourite fallacy of UA-cam commenters
Ad hominception
Isn't this a fallacy fallacy?
I guess you are referring to this graph: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/shop. I mean yea, you can also call it fallacy fallacy, I prefer meta fallacy.
The Cognitive Dissonance is real!!
So i'm getting to finish watching the critical thinking videos. then i'm gonna star to write up examples. I would like to know if any subscribers would like to weigh in ? share their own examples so we can discuss and learn. open to thoughts and suggestions.
*Bit late but I can help you out.*
I love Tucker's face
Would this apply to people doing things too? For example, when I play pool with my mates, someone will say I'm s**t before I've even taken the shot
I think that just makes him an asshole lol
A great majority of the time, in order to resolve ad hominems, I turn to the age old tactic of raising my voice and brandishing fist.
So in short "shooting the messenger" fallacy?
"Adrromining"
I do not see how that is ad hominem. The comment "you are paranoid" relates directly to the argument that was made. A popular ad hominem is to call someone a racist.
The phrase "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you" comes to mind. Being very overly concerned about things in general doesn't make a point less valid.
It is because you have not argued why AI would be safe. One's paranoia has no bearing on whether or not AI is a danger to humanity. Sort of like how one's feelings have no bearing on whether or not a statement is racist.
Its attacking the character, calling him paranoid, therefore ad hominem.
It is a bad argument but not an ad hominem as it does not attack the person. The argument is that presenting such claims is paranoid. Nowhere does it touch the person but he would say it to anyone presenting such claims.
I get what you're saying but it's still easy to explain why an ad hominem loses the argument. By stating "You're paranoid!" intending that a claim is paranoid, you are merely trying to say that you aren't afraid, but that isn't a *reason* to be unafraid, so it doesn't address the claim. That's the problem with the fallacy -- it doesn't matter if the insult is hurtful, or if it's something you would always say.
Someone from fox commenting on anothers qualifications for reporting.
Oh the irony.
Wouldn’t the advise to consider the source therefore be a circumstantial ad hominem? Example, if an oil company publishes research that shows climate change is not occurring due to burning petroleum. I know that ample evidence exists to show this research’s claim would be questionable, but to argue to look at the source seems wise, but not sound?
From my experience I am pretty sure this is the most common fallacy committed, though do correct me if I am wrong.
Hey! ;)
is it an Ad Hominem to say Trump is an Ad Hominem
Its probably a valid one tho sooo does it matter? Haha say anything about trump and its pretty much fair game to throw down is arguments
Fox News Makes me Vomit. how would this argument go?
Fallacious or phallacious?
“John sniffs his mother’s farts”
NEEEERRD
You're very much a distraction.