Religion is faith without evidence. Science is belief with evidence.

@@ChaiLatte64 Me, too! I’m an ecologist and I feel like I’m watching an arthropod massacre this time of year. People just don’t know…

@@WB45532 I understand your concern, and I typically try to avoid triggering issues for that very reason. In this case, the video is largely intended for science classes, so I made an executive decision to include evolution. (It’s the single most unifying and supported theory in all of the life sciences.) Thanks for your comment. :)

@@ThinkingPowers That makes sense, but I wonder if you might consider designing a course that is not intended primarily for science classes? Here's where I'm coming from. I live in the Deep South and attend a Southern Baptist church, despite significant disagreement with a lot of what is taught, because my family and community are there. This is more common than it might seem! The vast majority of people I come in contact with on a daily basis do not believe that evolution is "... the single most unifying and supported theory in all of the life sciences." Quite the opposite! They are far more likely to subscribe to the teachings of organizations like the Discovery Institute or people like Dr. James Tour, who says that science is "clueless" on the origin of life, there is no evidence for evolution, and it is all essentially a conspiracy to eliminate God from society. However, if I were to ask any of these same people whether they believe critical thinking is an important skill, they would all say yes. As you have explained in many of your interviews, people generally believe they are thinking rationally and hold reasonable beliefs, whether that is actually the case or not. What is needed is an agreed upon toolkit, as you have developed, that can be used to objectively validate, or maybe more importantly, invalidate beliefs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if this video did not mention evolution, I could easily share it with many of these people with whom I regularly interact and get immediate buy-in on the methodology, as this is what they believe they are already doing! The problem is the next step, the application, but we can't get there if we can't agree on a framework. So, that's what I am searching for. I really like what you have developed, but, unfortunately, can't quite use it due to that one little detail!

@@seans4893 Thank you! :)

@@dannylevy Thanks for your comment. I’m really struggling with sound. I have to find a way to fix it. :(

Counterpoint: I think your comment means you care more about winning arguments than being correct, therefore you're not trustworthy when it comes to things being true and your point must be wrong. I just used it on you. If it's not a fallacy, I'm therefore right about that statement, and if it is a fallacy, then your point is disproven by contradiction.

Logical fallacies come from formal logic, not the Ben Shapiro school of debate. Logic doesn't care what the audience thinks. That kind of the whole point.

@@SIS3W3N But speakers care what audiences think. And audiences don't necessarily care about facts, even if the people they are made up of may claim differently. Which means that a one on one discussion that you may enter with a genuine interest to learn and/or teach follows different rules than a public debate. So my point remains valid: don't lump in a dirty rhetoric technique with logical fallacies. Those are different things.

@@Volkbrecht That first paragraph is entirely irrelevant. No one is lumping anything in. The ad hominem is a logical fallacy. This isn't a matter of taste. It's how things are. Terms have meanings.

@@SIS3W3N So humor me, reflect on the meaning of the term "fallacy". I'm not a native speaker, but according to my favorite online dictionary that translates into a German word roughly meaning drawing a wrong conclusion, or thinking you know something you are wrong about ("Trugschluss"). Ad hominem arguments are not that. I can engage in those fully aware of what I'm saying. I don't even necessarily need to be dishonest when I do. As in: you may or may not have a point, but since I noticed certain things about you, I don't trust you or your intentions, based on my personal experience.

@@CraigGood Agreed. If someone resorts to mocking my hair I assume they don’t have an actual argument.

@@CraigGood 🤣

@@mitchelsnodgrass7028 😊

There's no global warming on a flat earth. Thus, no need for British UN climate taxes/carbon taxes/de-industrialization. The British will never be happy until everyone is forced to wipe their a$$ with their bear hands.

Thank you!

@@melanietrecek-king7503 A video I would LOVE to see: Walking through how to handle these fallacies when encountering them in actual conversations. My 14yo daughter sometimes just blurts out, "That's a genetic fallacy!", which doesn't always go over very well.

@@tdhoward Ha! I bet not! I’ll think on that video idea. :)

@@ericmckenny6748 😊

Explain why tribe is "racists" because it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

@@TheCompleteGuitarist it is because it implies an idea of cultural evolution ('evolution' here meaning exclusively 'improvement'). 'tribe' is only used to refer to small groups of people, usually hunter-gatherers, never used to describe monumentalistic cultures. the usage of the term is being criticised recently because it follows the cultural evolution mythology, which, in almost all cases, defines sofistication in the parameters of western/european societies. and you don't need to be a rude person, fella. you can just ask for an explanation without being so aggressive like that lmaoo

@@yuminsama1301 it only implies because you want it to. So therefore the bias is totally on you.

@@TheCompleteGuitarist on a video about logical fallacies, you came up to me asking for a reason, which i gave, only for you to say that the bias is in me because i am giving the word the meanings i listed. god, i wish i had this power in society kkkk

@@dannylevy Thank you!

Thanks!

well, i get what you said, but she was talking about scientific evidence-based strong consensus. like, real evidence being proven and believed. your point is very valid though.

@@yuminsama1301 <<scientific evidence-based strong consensus>> There is no such thing. Consensus does not make evidence based science any stronger. As Einstien said when the Nazis refuted his authority with a consensus, that it would only take one scientist to prove him wrong.

@@TheCompleteGuitarist i have no genuine clue on what you intended with this comment, like, honestly. i never said common consensus gives in the credibility of an evidence-based science conclusion, if that's what you meant.

The appeal to authority is indeed a logical fallacy.... First of all is caused because people don't understand words 😂🤷 What is the definition of authority? The quality of logic depends on the quality of the premises. For example "a politician is not an expert in climate change" why? Is the job you have that determines what you know? Or is it what you study?🤷 For example I have a high university degree in mechanical engineering. I worked as a taxi driver for a while. That means that all my knowledge about engineering, magically vanished in that period?🤷 Logic it's not as easy to master as some people believe 🤷 Ps Also I always had a high interest in psychology... If I have engineering official studies it means I can't learn philology, or the streets in a city?🤷

@@wardeggerrobertmarius144 what?? you're literally filling up your comment with the strawman fallacy now lol. "if i've worked with taxis, i've lost all my degrees? 🤓" obviously no. this wasn't the point of no one here. the appeal to authority, in, like, almost all cases, envolves an irrelevant authority. when she said politians aren't experts in climate change, she was refering the politians that aren't experts on it. i thought it was already obvious... and i also agree that there are people with degrees that use their diplomas to prove their biases, but it is still true to the point made in the video: trust the general consensus of the field, and, in the small letters: the general consensus proven by the scientific method.

You are projecting and making some massive assumptions! You are approaching this topic solely from what seems like a basic evolutionary perspective. Also, you just listed four different things: the mind, consciousness, soul, and ego are each easily and clearly definable as distinctly different from one another!

There are also objective, observable truths that can be tested and verified to have the same answer or result 100% of the time. I understand where you're coming from, but it is more complicated and nuanced than you are giving it credit for.

@@BiggerThanFrogs What a wonderful compliment. Thank you. 😊