20 Most Common Logical Fallacies

[@TheKingBeyondEverything]

A video that every one needs to see for both Making good arguements and spotting bad arguments.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Thanks for your kind comment! Glad you found it helpful.

[@TheKingBeyondEverything]

@@knotyourguru Maybe. I wrote this comment when I was in school. I'd really like to know which fallacy I have committed(like genuinely).

[@chrisshergie1030]

I believe knowing about this topic is the biggest validation for a college education. People who learn them without going to college are essentially educated imo because they understand how to learn and how to decipher information and obtain wisdom

[@chrisshergie1030]

@@TheKingBeyondEverythingprobably over generalizing or exaggerating but I think it was more of a literary choice by you and not a literal statement. Obviously not everyone would need to learn this, like people who already know it or infant babies or those in a coma. It might be something to avoid tho when talking about this topic.

[@josephfox9221]

I see myself in a lot of these. Thanks to you I can now really improve myself and have even more fallacies!

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Ha! You're welcome, Joseph.

[@sjoerdvrooland3289]

Haha indeed! Why go to a university when there are so many persuasive methods to make people believe what i want them to believe!

[@Dawnarow]

I think people didn't read His (Joseph's) comment to the end. Which is far more problematic than any fallacies offered, here. It's like saying I really would enjoy hurting people, but I dont believe in what I just said. He voluntarily formulated it this way and that makes him a shit person. Especially since he agreed that he sees himself "in a lot of these" rather than "facing a lot of these used against me". And no, he is not being ironic.

[@Dawnarow]

Yea you caught what this guy was saying... @@sjoerdvrooland3289 ... I dont think Dr.Jason did, though

[@Dawnarow]

@@jasonlepojarvi He wasn't being ironic and people aren't reading his sentence up until the end... conflating the first part with the beginning of the second sentence. Dude is saying And confirming that he's an ass. Just a headsup.

[@WHTJunior]

I came here on a KZbin recommendation, after watching [31 logical fallacies in 8 minutes] by Jill Bearup. Both are very informative. I see people using these all the time online, mainly in forums and politics, and have probably committed some, myself. Together, these videos should help me spot the fallacies more effectively, and improve my debate/discussion skills.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Glad you enjoyed the video.

[@nimo517]

Only stupid people watch KZbin, so you must be an idiot if you learn from videos online. *(1. Ad Hominem 😏)* Edit: please notice the attempted sarcasm…

[@derrickpigatt5195]

Yes people use them all the time. I’m watching this to learn more about myself and change any behaviors that showcase these arguments during conversations with others. I’m learning to be more logical and fair and consistent.

[@baik4499]

Your videos are making me miss college. I can’t have a classroom discussion with my peers anymore and I fear my friends and family may not find this stuff as interesting as I do😂

[@goldenflames1582]

I needed exactly this video today for personal reasons, I am SO GLAD I found it, and I am now a loyal fan of your content and will be watching more to learn. This is so digestible and so well put together, and EXACTLY what I needed, thank you SO MUCH for making it 🙌🙌

[@jasonlepojarvi]

You are most welcome. Thanks for an encouraging feedback.

[@chrisshergie1030]

A-mazing!

[@crozdaicolores]

This is one of the best videos ever. Reminds me a lot of David Tomasi. Thank you, Dr. Lepojärvi.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

You are most welcome. Thank you for your kind words.

[@theflyingdutchguy9870]

ever sinds i have been lesrning about logical fallacies. it has become very clear how common these are. and how often people reach wrong and even bad conclusions. it has taught me how incredibly important and handy it is to learn these

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Exactly!

[@michaelbaker9274]

I appreciated the slippery slope fallacy being illustrated with a warning about falling on ice.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Yes, some slopes are genuinely pretty slippery!

[@bnease007]

Great presentation. No matter how hard most of us try, we all slip up at times: enter the fallacy. I use your list to evaluate my own work. More than half the time, a logical fallacy finds its way into my speeches and writings.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Absolutely: we all fail. And we don't always fail deliberately, out of malice. Sometimes it is ignorance, laziness, or convenience. After all, we are finite beings. But of course sometimes we are being purposefully insincere, obfuscating the issue to avoid a defeat.

[@WalkmanYT]

Oh wow! Thank you so much for a solid list and explanation of logical fallacies. Not too long, and not too short

[@jasonlepojarvi]

You're very welcome.

[@tiberiusgracchus7328]

Good video. I'm sure that Dr. Lepojarvi would say that this is just a brief introduction to thinking about logial fallacies. I really enjoy something like this that stimulates the mind. One conclusion I draw from the video + my own experience: they often come together in twos or threes. Appeal to emotion is most often in the mix. I think that the ones I encounter most often are cherrypicking and whataboutism.

[@fieryjalapenos4442]

I’ve also heard 9 called the Texas sharpshooter argument. Using only a portion of a quote or article because that exact part supports your argument but ignoring the rest of the article because it refutes your point.

[@tiberiusgracchus7328]

Well, I can tell you that they like this one a lot in Texas no matter what you call it. It's a personal favorite of Greg Abbott.

[@1sanremy]

"the bank is not open because it is closed" i love this one.

[@dannovak3886]

Just remember this logic will get you the truth but rhetoric will win the day

[@jjkthebest]

The thing that sucks is that it's incredibly hard not to cherry pick. We have limited time, so we can only analyse so much evidence. Also, in my experience, logical fallacies are misidentified almost as often as they're committed. I think you know this, since you point out what isn't a fallacy on multiple occasions, but I feel like it's worth reiterating.

[@John_McBain]

Lol, I've watched a few of these videos and have had that exact thought repeatedly running around in my head. That guy just argued that fallacy, but now he's using it... lol! Now I here hoping this is a better video.

[@arandiasjournal491]

Thank you so much! This will definitely come in handy for my paralegal studies🙌

[@jasonlepojarvi]

I'm glad you found them so helpful. Good luck with your studies!

[@danicapellvonhumboldt890]

Very very informative and thorough work. Sharing this on social media. Love to learn about fallacies...

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Excellent! Glad you found it helpful.

[@Spanishman1000]

This is wonderful. Unfortunately I never learned this in school (hindsight is 20/20). When I finally looked for the information the first few videos were political debates and the examples contained. The sad part is that the videos were only a couple minutes long. It doesn't matter what your views are, it takes more than a couple minutes to explain the concepts

[@sjoerdvrooland3289]

I find it fascinating to see that both political left and right, both religious and atheïst, both educated and uneducated are guilty of these fallacies.

[@Ivan-td7kb]

Logical fallacies are often used to shutdown legitimate concerns. There’s definitely a bias towards being open to possibilities over being cautious.

[@JediDrPepper049]

Depends on what kinds of fallacies they are making.

[@user-or6qv8kc1u]

@@JediDrPepper049 kooooooloioooioooooioiooiiooiooo it will of our pool iiiooiioooioo to go on ooooioo I guess it will of oo

[@JediDrPepper049]

@@user-or6qv8kc1u why are you quoting trump?

[@thefreshprince-t4m]

If a philosopher exposes the logical fallacies used by a corrupted doctor as a rhetorical device for persuading or manipulating others, then they may serve to shutdown the corrupted doctor’s illegitimate claims or actions. A philosopher exposes the logical fallacies used by a corrupted doctor as a rhetorical device for persuading or manipulating others. Therefore, they may serve to shutdown the corrupted doctor’s illegitimate claims or actions. In many cases, philosophers have exposed the logical fallacies used by corrupted doctors as a rhetorical device for persuading or manipulating others. In most of these cases, exposing the logical fallacies has served to shutdown the corrupted doctors’ illegitimate claims or actions. Therefore, logical fallacies serve to shutdown legitimate concerns.

[@darrellhickey1990]

Nonsense

[@troynunley8161]

Very common: Fallacy of Misplaced Burden or "burden shifting." Many public debates (esp. "interviews") follow the pattern of (1) accuse or falsely attribute: usually by using the word "So," examples, "So what you're saying is," "So you think that," "So (insert bizarre overgeneralization/ converse accident) (2) Then position the victim (ie. interview guest) to have to talk THEM (ie. attributer) out of this description of they attributed.

[@TylerTheUke]

Thanks for the lecture! I grew up in Sudbury, but its been ages since Ive been back

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Sudbury has changed quite a bit in 20 years!

[@floraparedes5688]

Was the deliberate fallacy the misuse of the word "finite" to describe human beings during the lecture? Because it confused me a little. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong! Otherwise, amazing lecture! Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us plebes. 🙌🏼

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Hi! I did not commit a deliberate fallacy in THIS lecture. Do you have the time stamp for "finite"? I might have committed an accidental fallacy, haha.

[@gemmalee3032]

Thanks a lot for this very relevant video clip. STEM subjects are more appealing to me because of logic and argumentation topics like this. In cases of emergency, matters of life and death, it would take a skilled debater to come up with sound conclusion and appropriate action from fast and correct judgment. Difficult to be careful and quick.

[@LizAchmad]

Thanks Professor!

[@emilyashley4820]

Starts at 7:06

[@internchangelabosa6342]

trying to learn all those. Thank you Dr Leopjaervi.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

You're most welcome.

[@LamiNalchor]

Absolutely well done.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Thank you!

[@pavel9652]

Argumentum ad Offendum! Haha, sounds legit! I will learn Latin one day ;)

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Glad you liked it! ;-) I thought it sounded pretty legit too…

[@maxxiong]

I know of an example of an unfalsifiability fallacy that I came across and I finally know the name now. There is a channel out there that suggests old metronome markings for classical music was meant to be read at half the tempo, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, the channel found another piece of supposed evidence that suggests the word "minute" can mean 2 minutes that context, but this makes their claim unfalsifiable.

[@gerrardjones28]

Very interesting, thanks for explaining

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

16:00f The examples to the _appeal to law_ fallacy are all things which are morally wrong but still legal. I'd like also the other way around being mentioned.

[@Baptized_in_Fire.]

Same

[@red-s5e]

You've got a nice little touch of humour to your presentation.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Thank you!

[@houstongordon9337]

KZbin needs a "just make it louder" option where quality goes pit the window and you can boost the volume UNTIL YOU CAN CLEARLY HEAR IT

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Not a bad idea.

[@mrwrestlemania51]

“The bible says the bible is true, so the bible must be true” lol best line ever

[@AbhiDaBeatTheSecond]

As a Christian, I agree with this. Edit: But this is really not what actual Christians argue for. To think so would be a strawman argument.

[@AbhiDaBeatTheSecond]

@Judith Mirville On your side man. But I don't really understand your argument though. Anyways, The Bible makes numerous testable claims and prophecies which have come true. Do you know that the Bible and Jesus Christ were the catalyst to the gigantic growth and progress of natural sciences? Without the Bible, Natural science would have remained almost unknown.

[@kylewang293]

Of course, those who are conditioned and deluded definitely accept whatever any scripture says, including bible. No shred of logic or evidence in it.

[@AbhiDaBeatTheSecond]

@@kylewang293 No, we Christians don't believe in a God based on unfalsifiable claims. The Bible actually makes several testable/falsifiable claims and predictions proving that the God of the Bible created the whole universe. For example, there are two testable claims or predictions that the bible makes that *need* to be *correct* at the *same* *time* which are (1) the intelligent designer has given us cognitive faculties that are powerful enough to understand the physical universe around us and (2) since the physical universe is designed by an intelligent designer, we should be able to understand the physical universe around us. Even if one of these testable claims are wrong, our universe isn't created by the God of the bible. These testable claims are taken from Psalms 19:1-6- 1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for lthe sun, 5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. 6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat. And Romans 1:20- 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. So basically, the Bible is true because the claims in the Bible are tested to be true. We don't have blind faith in the Bible.

[@AbhiDaBeatTheSecond]

@@kylewang293 Also just in case, just be careful not to strawman my argument by saying that I am arguing: "We think and therefore God exists". My argument is not that at all. If you want, I can carefully explain my argument further.

[@theagency13]

I thank you for your video. And I agree with your analogy that intellectual virtues are congruent with physical virtues as well as what you would consider spiritual or emotional virtues of the higher mind. For example you one could argue that courage is the intellectual or spiritual virtue congruent to the physical body as strength or might. Where charity and love which are synonymous are the spiritual virtues would be congruent with the physical virtue of being flexible flexibility in able to stretch and encompass and reach. My studies have virtues have led me to nine virtues. And I was wondering what you thought further on those points or what your list of virtues are?

[@jasonlepojarvi]

I agree that there is a connection between intellectual virtues, moral virtues, and physical virtues. I don't fully understand those connections, but I think I am beginning to. I would say that there are more than nine virtues. Much more. A very helpful and accessible introduction to virtue theory is surprisingly a leadership book called Virtuous Leadership by Alexandre Havard. Get it.

[@theagency13]

@@jasonlepojarvi I will look for the book thanks

[@coleslawxd4973]

Amazing video!

[@Navenanthen]

Thanks. Added to my playlist. :)

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Excellent!

[@isnamthere4690]

People should take a long look at #8. This is one of the most misunderstood and misused phrases in the american lexicon. And it makes one sound extremely stupid when used in the wrong way. But we hear politicians, newscasters and other, supposedly educated, professionals using it incorrectly every day.

[@derrickpigatt5195]

Ok so how do we use logic in an opposite manner? What are main examples of truthful logic?

[@rajnishyadav4296]

Thank you so much 🙋

[@jasonlepojarvi]

You're very welcome.

[@christianabhishek647]

Thank you, sir.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

You are most welcome.

[@antwan1357]

thank you for making this but could you do a shorter version of the same thing summarizing?

[@josephthomas2226]

Excellent presentation, thanks. A couple comments... I think "what aboutism" that claims hypocrisy is really the tu Quoque fallacy (you too) when you turn it against the person rather than addressing the argument. Example "lying is wrong" - "well you said you couldn't come to the baby shower but you were free that day" I think the other example is really Red Herring (changing the subject to something unrelated) isn't Reductio Ad Hitlerum just a specific example of False Comparison?

[@jasonlepojarvi]

All good observations. Yes, with fallacies there's lots of overlap. Non sequitur, for example, fits the underlying form of many other fallacies.

[@josephthomas2226]

@@jasonlepojarvi Great point - I guess all formal fallacies are some form of non sequitur, right? Again, thanks for a great video

[@Thegrumpycoach]

I enjoyed this.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Thanks, Nick!

[@MohamedBadat-yp7xj]

How did you classify whataboutsim as a logical fallacy and left out Fallacy fallacy

[@God-ld6ll]

Looking back at the AH Fal. Can't help but also sometimes think of it as ad homiside. Maybe to get the audience's attention on subject.😂

[@chrisshergie1030]

Bulverism is a good one. Is it usually called something else?

[@bleedszn]

definitely learned some new words in this

[@bleedszn]

"inimical"

[@Axis.Mundis.]

4:06 heliocentrism and every argument for a globe earth is a logical fallacy

[@nowonmetube]

Omg 😂 This explains a lot what's going wrong in our modern society.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Studying the dos and don'ts of argumentation surely helps navigate these times. But this has probably always been true.

[@desserted9429]

Today I learned that I am stupid. The whole life I was told otherwise.

[@Hatem_Sabour]

thank you

[@erebus3059]

What I learned from this: 20 Logical Fallacies OP is a Tolkien Fan.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

OP?

[@erebus3059]

@@jasonlepojarvi Original Post/Poster. Its a reddit thing.

[@writeousrhema]

Very helpful! I can use this info for my series on apologetics

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Absolutely, please do! Pass it on.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

31:24f The first example is not the best for this particular fallacy because it's more about thinking that one possibility excludes the other while it doesn't. A better example would be calling someone a Nazi or a Faschist because (s)he doesn't agree with Marxism, since Marxism and Faschism indeed exclude each other but you still can be neither of them but e.g. liberal.

[@mandyharewood886]

I KNEW you were going to use the Bible for the example of circular logic. I've been countering that argument with those same words for decades. They don't get it.

[@sawwalker1]

Argumentum ad Delictum, Affensio, Affensa, Culpa or Iniuria, can be used as a replacement for offence. I didn't know this I looked it up, I don't speak Latin 😊

[@Cinetyk]

Probably should add: if it has a latin name or other fancy-sounding stuff, it's probably true. Nope, just gotta analyse it, same as everything else. Though, to be fair, there was a lot of discussion and "analysing" of many a philosophical/moral matter back in the day, so probably not a bad place to start.

[@thefreshprince-t4m]

What was your thesis about? What did you do with your philosophy time so far?

[@thefreshprince-t4m]

And this video is great, thank you.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Thank you! What thesis?

[@theostapel]

Lists - personal lists - for others to follow........ Only if you are - a great spiritual Master. Oh - that position - is already taken. You have your story - and your work. Good luck. (Fare thee well)

[@nopaprr]

What does this mean

[@nimo517]

The information you know from “Tolkien’s personal letters” is interesting, but I’m wondering if you’re okay. CS Lewis and Tolkien really get you going haha

[@nimo517]

Thanks so much for taking the time to go over each tactic and examples I’ve watched this 5 times since first commenting

[@jasonlepojarvi]

@@nimo517 That's amazing. Glad it's been so helpful!

[@markj2305]

Thanks for this. Too many "all the times" for us word commissar. :)

[@jasonlepojarvi]

I wish I wasn't deaf to them!

[@dlon4539]

Someone kept responding to my comments with Ad Hominem counter arguments, so never had to react

[@mandyharewood886]

The slope of legally accommodating transgender identity has proven to be a slippery slope for the rights of women. I see many of these fallacies presented in favour of the transgender position.

[@iStorm-my5fp]

Thank you, I'm taking the lsat wish me luck

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Good luck!

[@liberosisnow]

I'm in argument 6 and wanting to share this with as many trans activists as I can 🙃

[@niemand7811]

Two more fallacies I understand are very common (most of the time in debates where religious people try to defend their strong held believes and especially when presuppositionalists are talking up) are these: 1. The fallacy of pressuposing anything supernatural: With that strategy the person presupposing the "thing" automatically assumes to hold the higher stand/position and argues down on any debate opposition. That person (a.k.a. presuppositionalist) won't listen. They do not come for the debate but only to be right. If the debate opponent does not follow their imaginative rules (a.k.a. their script) they become very agressive or impulsive. When someone cuts right through their script they often start to distract the audience and make a horrible show that is again mostly all about them, their feelings etc. Many times the presupps withdraw from a debate when they can not win and do death-talk their opponents in their own chat rooms and litle online communities where they aremostly surrounded by yes sayers. That is the most vile kind of fallacy troll. It often also intersects with the "authority fallacy". 2. The authority fallacy: This type is easily dismantled. It often reveals itself when always mentioning a certain source which has little to no impact on the point of the debate at all or if said source has been proven to be invalid. Also they like to name drop other person you as their debate opponene might never heard of and you are called lesser of a debater because you must have heard of this or thast person who claimes this or that. or has written this or that one specific book. So this is mostly another strategy to distract from the actual point of debate. And like the presupp fallacy doesn'tgo anywhere which is the intended goal of the person using/abusing that fallacy if their opponent is unaware. Also another trap is when the presuppositionalists asks the debate opponent to interact on their platform. Because their they make the rules and anybody except them has no chance to debate honestly, being interrupted and muted or even banned all the time. If you ever encounter a presupp do one thing: Deny them their opportunity to come out. Let them starve in their crumpling mind.

[@wilsontexas]

Evolutionists are guilty of this, but then again its like a religion.

[@Jersey-towncrier]

I swear I see these all over the place whenever I watch CNN or MSNBC. To a lesser extent Fox, and rarely, if ever, on Newsmax, Epoch Times or OAN.

[@Jersey-towncrier]

Shit, just number 4 has been used over and over by the Lamestream Media to defend Biden from impeachment. "Hunter did this or that with Joe. But it isn't like it's illegal."

[@Natanmichael-de8sc]

thanks

[@erikanderson5176]

0:57 When you’re good at detecting BS you are more likely to avoid it yourself…fallacy

[@detorreonpla3424]

Those "Whataboutism" people just like to argue.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

That’s sure possible. Or then they DON’T like to argue about the topic being discussed, and are trying to derail the conversation (”yeah, but what about…”).

[@steveunderhill5935]

Shout out to Sudbury! Woot woot

[@RooftopKoreansMusic]

The irony is that plenty of the "logic fallacies" aren't even fallacies of logic necessarily, and hardly anyone realizes that, they blindly repeat them, quite a few of them are simply ways to manipulate the person you are arguing with. The most egregious being the "slipper slope fallacy," which is not a fallacy at all. If a person's prediction is wrong based on a series of events that could occur due to an impetus, their prediction simply turned out to be wrong... not a fallacy... think about if they happen to be RIGHT and yet an academic half-wit in either case would have called their prediction a "slippery slope fallacy"

[@ThomasFawkes]

Holy cow I love the Tolkien and Lewis references bwahahah

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Glad you appreciated them! I think they would have approved, too…

[@lapimano2]

Under what category it falls when someone dismisses a theory as fals, saying: "its a conspiracy theory" without even arguing about it? My bet is the circular reasoning, but not sure.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

I don't think this is a fallacy per se, not a fault in argumentation. Rather it is a lack of argument altogether. If I point to a banana and say "it's an apple," where is the argument exactly? I am making a claim that does not rise to the dignity of argument. An argument would have a "because," that is, give reasons and evidence. When reasons and evidence go wrong, enter the fallacy proper.

[@maximilyen]

I want to be logical and successful.

[@chrisshergie1030]

Wow im actually impressed by the amount of self reflection in this comments section. Very strange, maybe I need to keep reading lol

[@dannovak3886]

My favorite is the false cause. For example just today was very hot out and some people in front of the dollar store were saying that he caused the grass island catch on fire. What nonsense. No sense in Talking to them If they are that stupid

[@RooftopKoreansMusic]

Ad Hominem is not a fallacy, right in it's own definition it tells you that... you're attacking the person making the argument, not the argument... thus you calling them names isn't saying anything about their argument, so how could it be a logical fallacy when you've said nothing about the argument? It's simply a judgement of a person, while perhaps not conducive to an argument, it's neither logical nor illogical and not fallacious either.

[@stevedynell3330]

Dear Dr. Lepojarvi, God's grace+peace to you, your loved ones, your colleagues, your students, your many friends+your church or fellowship from the Philippines! Sorry to be so simple-minded+detail-obsessed, but why did you include "appeal to faith" on this list? After all, shouldn't you be a born-again+Bible-believing Christian? There is only ONE living, saving+Biblical faith, which is granted to us when we repent of our sins+when we receive Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. Of course, we must also abide in Him. Have a wonderful, blessef, uplifting, righteous, productive, healthy+godly Happy New Year 2024!

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Happy New Year to you too! The 'faith' in the 'appeal to faith' does not mean the virtue of faith in the Christian sense as explained by, for example, C.S. Lewis in his many writings. Rather it is a 'blind faith' that deliberately shuts its eyes from contradictory evidence. This is a fallacy, not a virtue.

[@felixtownn]

23:11

[@wilsontexas]

Evolutionists and big bangers are guilty of so many of these fallacies. If they were hinest they could just say they dont know but they are very aware not to let the idea of a God being ruled out or not admitted into any ofvthe possiblities.

[@SaimAbbas-d7c]

what Are These For Are You Muslim Or Christian or what religion

[@faswfesafdfdas970]

these are examples?

[@danstewart2770]

I thought argumentation was barred from university life? - you know, like everybody now agrees on the same thing and there's no saying anything that another person may find disagreeable? I hope you're tenured.

[@truthbebold4009]

Hivemind exists

[@d.michaelking4919]

I gave up on this video due to far to many interruptions from ads. Ugh!

[@jasonlepojarvi]

I wish I could turn them off.

[@tiberiusgracchus7328]

Interesting. I did not have any ads when I just watched.

[@renebaeee]

not the millennial pause 😭 0:01

[@stevedynell3330]

The Bible actually has many verses+passages which are tied together touchingly by the Bible's central message: God's wonderful redemption+salvation plan. It culminated in the 1st coming of Jesus Christ (all the way from His immaculate conception+virgin birth to His passion, crucifixion, shed blood, resurrection+ascension). In the end times, which we are living in, God's salvation+redemption plan will be consummated+completed through the various events of the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ.

[@hglundahl]

Is God of the Gaps a Fallacy?

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Good question. I suppose it could easily be defined in a way that approaches a fallacy. In any case, "Therefore, God did it" will not convince anyone who categorically rejects the miraculous.

[@hglundahl]

@@jasonlepojarvi Easily? Take a try. _"will not convince anyone who categorically rejects the miraculous."_ Fallacies or good logic are not about how it is received by those categorically opposed to one's position, right?

[@hglundahl]

@@jasonlepojarvi OK, you didn't take a try, even if it was easy. I actually asked someone else as well, he claimed it was a version of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" and I asked him what exactly that would boil down to. First I made a try to define God of the gaps as a fallacy. He neither confirmed nor denied it, and next day I gave my objections - to which he has also not answered since yesterday. *My try:* Let me see if i can reconstruct your train of thought correctly ... Knowledge comes in individual and unsystematic, and in science. Science is always necessarily incomplete, but infinitely completable. Science rules out appeals to God, and will answer everything we now know how to ask, because that is finite. Therefore, in order to answer a thing to which Science has no non-Theistic answer, the correct procedure is to posit a future non-Theistic answer (also otherwise in principle accessible to Science) and take a guess at it - and to posit instead a Theistic answer, and as already known, is ignorance of the future non-Theistic answer ... Was that about it? *My Objections:* Because, if so, I find it problematic. A) Can one have "appeal to ignorance" in the case when the ignorance is one of future, not yet available, discoveries? B) Why would the future discoveries necessarily be supportive of what one might call a "scientific world view" rather than a Theistic one?

[@tiberiusgracchus7328]

I would say that the God of the gaps idea has two logical fallacies: the theory is unfalsifiable , and as it is usually presented, represents a false dilemma.

[@hglundahl]

@@tiberiusgracchus7328 Both problems are _easily_ resolved. 1) We do not deal with a position that could not be falsified in any conceivable setting, but one that is verified by us being there to verify our setting; 2) When it comes to "false dilemma" it's easy to claim if you can base that, not on "tertium datur, hoc nempe" but rather on "there are a million of possibilities" ... That said, "God of the gaps" is not how we describe our Theistic apologetics, it is rather a charge against it, and one conducted by people who would be less at ease to provide a demonstration that I were presenting or someone on CMI were presenting, a case that's so iron clad with ifs and buts it could never in principle be falsified even if false, and to provide a "tertium datur, hoc nempe" to the supposed false dilemma. In fact, it started out as Nietzsche's charge against clergy over time, and it got this specific name by a Scottish FreeChurch preacher who recommended settling over to the "god of evolution" ...

[@prschuster]

The sad fact is that these fallacies work so well, that you are at a disadvantage in persuading anyone, unless you do resort to these fallacies.

[@crazydrummerofdoom]

Genetic fallacy argument is the atheist favorite against the bible.

[@_eLf45]

I Need to change the playspeed of the video 2 times faster 🤣

[@jasonlepojarvi]

By all means!

[@Baptized_in_Fire.]

Someone has ADHD lol

[@blackcryptoguy8967]

My friend encouraged me do this fun thought experiment after watching this video, he asked me to explain the heliocentric model of our "world" after learning these. Its a fun thought experiment, and becomes difficult to logically argue for a heliocentric model. Curious as to if youve ever done something like challenging your current beliefs like that?

[@vlatkosurlan545]

Funny that you would lecture on logical fallacies and talk about "literal falsehoods" while having a globe behind you when the Earth is not a sphere. Otherwise an excellent lecture. I love regularly exercising my fallacy detecting muscles.

[@josephfox9221]

Well what about maps!

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Thanks, Vlatko! Representations are rarely impeccably accurate.

[@vlatkosurlan545]

@@jasonlepojarvi You can say that again!

[@vlatkosurlan545]

@@josephfox9221 Maps are attempts to represent physical reality on a plane. When researching the topic of flatness of the Earth, maps are not a very good starting point. Your best choice is to look for phenomena that cannot be explained in one of the two models. When comparing flat Earth model to the spherical one, the most obvious and the largest difference between the two is the very simple and easy to understand difference between a flat surface and a curved one. In practical terms, on a flat surface you must be able to see much, much farther than on a curved one, and that is exactly what you will find if you point any optics with decent magnification over a large enough body of water. You will find an excellent example if you search for 'jtolan media1 1200 mi in infrared 1080' on KZbin. And yes, you have to type all of that because otherwise the lovely KZbin algorithm will try to protect your feeble mind from being exposed to that video.

[@josephfox9221]

@@vlatkosurlan545 oh no I wasn't being sincere I was trying to be ironic. But thank you for explaining anyway

[@RacingMeyer8]

5min mark. Logical Fallacy?

[@richardoschell6462]

Calvinism doesnt teach losing faith, it teaches losing true salivation. There are variations of faith, and these issues are hammered out in theoligical writings, but salvation coming from God, its God who gets the Christian to the end, mot us and our own often weak faith.. Anyway, your point taken..

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Ditto: point taken.

[@derricktapia2098]

⚫

[@jeff3putt]

It appears that the video has an axe to grind against Christianity. If the no true Scotsman fallacy is valid then the word hypocrite is made invalid.it was Jesus that taught what a true Christian was,(John 6)not Calvin. So the video was a strawman fallacy against Christianity.

[@madra000]

How is 6 fallacy? Who can be able to approve or disprove the factually seeable claims of a trauma victim ( in this case) but first hand witnesses are used to justify credible truth in public discussion? The witnesses say....this is then taken in with out much protection, but how is this practical?

[@tiberiusgracchus7328]

When I think of this one I can't get away from image I see on television (not really sure how prevalent in real life) of former drug addicts becoming "experts" in rehabilitation. (Possibly making lots of money in the process.) A background as an addict may very well give special insight that could be useful or practical in helping people in a way that might be overlooked by an inexperienced person with a purely academic knowledge of the subject. But it does not make you an instant expert by itself. Obviously drug addiction is not the only area where this might apply.

[@jasonlepojarvi]

I think the "by itself" qualification here is key. A traumatic experienc of something CAN give you insight into some aspects of what caused it, but not necessarily. Sometimes the experience can backfire by clouding your judgment. The fallacy is to assume trauma=expertise.

[@Baptized_in_Fire.]

First hand witnesses are often wrong. Often video later contradicts statements made. They're inherently unreliable

[@thewoodman99]

A guy that has a globe in the background is going to teach me about logical fallacies? I don't think so. See ya

[@jasonlepojarvi]

Ad hominem!

[@Baptized_in_Fire.]

Funniest comment lol