22 Common Fallacies

[@lalibellapayne8384]

I cried when you spoke about relativity fallacy. I am a 26 year old living in Jamaica and I don't think i have ever met another person who believes in objective reality. Every debate devolves into "everything is perspective so i can't be wrong." I have never felt so validated by a youtube video in my life. Thank you.

[@Mrlimabean01]

Look up Locke, Hume, Paine, Voltaire. We have nearly forgotten our heroes but there is a reason we once celebrated them

[@duckyoutube6318]

@@Mrlimabean01 i agree 100%

[@alittax]

Are people really like that where you're from?

[@kingofthechair5752]

That’s because Jamaica has a lower than average IQ than other groups. Abstract concepts become harder to understand.

[@MikiyasKng]

😊 Your name is beautiful.

[@cesaresaladandthespicycrou4080]

I have free will because I have no other choice.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Lmfao Nice one.

[@pradeepkumarm944]

Why is this so amusing and intriguing? Can someone pls explain. I am baffled. Thanks in advance.

[@cesaresaladandthespicycrou4080]

@@pradeepkumarm944 why is what so amusing my comment?

[@pradeepkumarm944]

@@cesaresaladandthespicycrou4080Hi, let me know if I understand this comment of yours correctly. If you are asking, "what is so amusing about my comment?", that's exactly my question. I am unable to find out. Please explain. What made you write that? And why is it so intriguing?

[@janecote]

Thanks, especially for not having music in the background. Very nice to use realistic, everyday examples.

[@dienekes4364]

_"especially for not having music in the background."_ -- I wish I could "thumb up" this comment 10000000 times!!!!!

[@eckdavid2472]

I enjoyed your video: there were good examples, some silly, some from real life. I also liked the fact that you focused it on having productive discussions, not winning arguments.

[@re431]

This guy is a gem. If people were more interested in philosophical topics like these, the world would've been a better place

[@christinaspooner3890]

Like this guy's info and explanations, but I can't stop getting South Park images in my head 'mmmkayyy' lol

[@nv7287]

really good - but would be great to fix the sound! Audacity is free and can remove mic static and pops easily with filter - worth doing if you want more people to listen to clip - its great info but is hard to focus. Anyway thanks again I really enjoy learning more :) and appreciate the time you have taken to share your knowledge :)

[@tanner865]

Thanks NV, I just researched audacity, downloaded it, and will try it out. I recently started using the pop filter and a better mic. Best, Paul

[@BertleMcGertle]

My ex-girlfriend is the devil because I've never seen the devil and her in the same room.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

😂😂😂

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Thought this was going to go in another direction but wasn't disappointed

[@pradeepkumarm944]

Good premise, bad inference, but excellent conclusion.

[@dienekes4364]

I have a great example of a slippery slope fallacy. Years ago I worked at a company that always had a rush of work on the first and last weeks of the month with the middle weeks being very slow. I would always work overtime when we were busy and then take comp time in the middle of the month. My manager called me into the office one day and told me he could give me any more comp time. His reasoning was that, because he could never deny me comp time (because I worked it around the companies schedule to the company's benefit), he couldn't deny anyone else's comp time requests, even on the heavy weeks of the month. Well, okay. Maybe it's less a fallacy than it was him being a crappy, incompetent manager. LOL

[@kingofthechair5752]

Or the lgbt acceptance argument…. Wait a minute

[@GutsToCuts]

I like how you included examples about eating animals. It really is a good thing to use because it’s something people in society do that people defend with a crap ton of fallacies.

[@crfan4232]

This goes for both sides. However be careful not to fall into the fallacious thinking that a fallacy immediately means that the opposite is true. Better is a take it with a grain of salt kind of approach.

[@keepsteddy]

Awesome. Ive heard the term logical fallacy before and things like strawman or red herring. But didn't know it was its own thing. The other day in English class we discussed logical fallacies, so looked this up to learn more. God bless you

[@miguellgeorge9869]

The appeal ad populum is the fallacy that really gets on my nerves the most, because if you say something that most people would disagree with, or that goes against conventional wisdom, people tend to think you think you know better than everyone else.

[@WastedTimeBros]

You have a way with words, I am never bored watching your videos.

[@Cannabinol]

I was brought here by reading arguments on KZbin about Greta the climate activist. I'm fascinated by phycology and I've always seen myself as logically astute. I was struggling to comprehend the logical reasoning of people who hate on a 16 year old girl that's fighting for a sustainable future. I remembered the term 'confirmation bias'. Haters use it so much. I'm seeing these logical fallacies crop up in arguments and I note that I've often been guilty of these without realising it. I'll deffo go through your vids my man, you've given me an insightful new source of information. Much appreciated.

[@magneticus2220]

It's like majority of political arguments these days. A collection of ad hominem, straw men, appeal to authority, red herrings, and group think. Of course, I don't think the nature of arguments have changed, but they are much more apparent now that we can all get feedback in real time from social media.

[@bigneiltoo]

Are you serious? You think it's a logical fallacy to criticize an autistic child lecturing the world around her? You are committing ad hominem attacks on "people who hate on a 16 year old girl". You appeal to emotion "girl that's fighting for a sustainable future". You are USING confirmation bias. Calling your opponents haters? You're committing circular logic by assuming what Greta is saying is "fighting for a sustainable future". I'll bet any amount of money you supported Covid lockdowns.

[@Cannabinol]

@@bigneiltoo You ad hominem by opening with the fact she's autistic to discredit critical thinking. Then using terms like lecturing like a crap paper headline. The go on to some whataboutism literally switching to assume to know my stance lockdowns generalising every country 🤤

[@Bleeksan0]

Just found your channel. Im binge watching your vids.

[@teachphilosophy]

+Bleeksan0 Thanks, Bleeksan0. Enjoy, Paul :)

[@tyvischjager9794]

Got pretty enlightened when I realised 99% of language is a fallacy.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Now I'm addicted to watching fallacy videos Yt brings interesting things to us 😂

[@Beyond_Belief534]

Bodies of standing water do not naturally hold and display convexity or conform to the exterior of shapes. Opposing pressure systems do not co exist adjacent to one another while maintaining their respective properties without a barrier of separation between them.

[@johntho5674]

Does this video use the "many people used to believe the earth was flat" example of a fallacy, and not see that the opposite applies right now? I find that pretty frequently when reading up on fallacies or watching vids on them. The "teachers" committing obvious fallacies. Haha.

[@Beyond_Belief534]

john doe Exactly, have you read their switcheroo on the Galileo fallacy? I wonder why they set that one up.....

[@johntho5674]

What type of science are you talking about? Also, stating that doesn't make it a good thing.

[@johntho5674]

Hey - were you at the hangout earlier...wtf happened, I missed it but the message that comes up now if I try to view it is....concerning. Also, could you suggest some books on the trivium that are worth while. So far I've come up with "the trivium" by sister miriam joseph, and "trivium" by John Michell (and others). Thanks.

[@Steve-h-v]

@@johntho5674 Fancy seeing you two here lol. Just found a book in Waterstones book shop called (How to Win Every Argument The Use and Abuse of Logic) by Madsen Pirie £14.99 but if you Google it and put pdf on the end you can download it

[@Filming-and-Stuff]

Thank you for posting these videos - greatly indebted to you!

[@TheRationalChannel]

Really nice video, I greatly enjoyed it! Understanding ways to discuss information is essential. -R

[@teachphilosophy]

+The Rational Channel Thanks, and your channel looks interesting. I'll check it out sometime soon. Paul

[@nassimhadjbenali3819]

This is excellent content. Thanks a lot !

[@elysemoran]

Appeal to nature - X is good because it’s natural, or Y is bad because it is unnatural. Black and white thinking - illegitimately limiting the alternatives available. Ad hominem - addressing the person or person’s circumstances instead of the argument. Genetic - we dismiss an idea or argument because of its origin or history. Slippery slope - A will lead to B, and B will lead to undesirable C, so we shouldn’t do A (no good reason why A will lead to B, which will lead to C). Argument from ignorance - no one has proven A is false, so A is true. Cherry-picking - we only see data in support of our ideas and ignore or suppress or do not see data that might disconfirm our ideas. Appeal to emotion and people - we appeal to emotion alone or argue conclusion must be true or good because most people believe it is true or good. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - happened before B so A caused B. Straw man - misrepresent an argument to more easily defeat it. Relativist - we illegitimately argue nobody is incorrect on objective issues, X is true for me and false for you then we are both correct. Absolutism - we make no exceptions for rules that have exceptions. Begging the question/circulating reasoning - we assume what we are trying to prove, the conclusion is stated or assumed in the premises. Equivocation - we shift the meaning of a word in an argument. Hasty generalization - we illegitimately generalize from a nonrepresentative sample. Composition - we invalidly infer the quality of the whole from the quality of the parts. Division - we invalidly infer the qualities of the parts from the qualities of the whole. Lottery - we invalidly infer X must be designed because X is so improbable. Appeal to dubious/inappropriate authority - appealing to someone who is not an authority or with whom other authorities disagree. Red herring - we change the subject or give an irrelevant response to distract. Playing god - we argue that we should not intervene in the “natural” course of events because intervening would be playing god. Nonsequitur - the conclusion does not follow the events of the evidence/premises.

[@habeshacomedy]

Thanks very much it helped me more in studying of Fallacy

[@heshamsayed5567]

WONDERFUL. Is there a slideshow for this?

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Thanks so much. This is great!

[@teachphilosophy]

+Julian Walker Welcome.:)

[@jnanashakti6036]

I realize I probably won't get answer from OP, but on your example about red herring and not charging by ethics. I'm curious how we conclude something is inherently ethical enough to negate noting someone else would overcharge would be a red herring.

[@dazpearce2096]

False causation I remember from a news broadcast years ago:- there's been an AIDS epidemic in the city, which was of course caused by...poverty. Thanks for this video - appreciated...

[@naganandakk1510]

1. Appeal to Nature 2. Black and White 3. Ad Hominem 4. Genetic fallacy 5. Slippery slope 6. Argument from Ignorance 7. Cherry picking 8. Appeal to emotions and Ad Populum 9. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc (correlation doesn't imply causation) 10. Straw man fallacy 11. Relativist Fallacy 12. Absolutism (simple answers for complex questions) 13. Begging question/Circular Reason 14. Equivocation (shift meaning of word) 15. Hasty generalisation 16. Composition (infer quality of whole from parts) 17. Division (infer quality of parts from whole) 18. Lottery Fallacy (designed because improbable) 19. Appeal to inappropriate authority 20. Red Herring (distract) 21. Playing God (don't intervene) 22. Non Sequitur (it doesn't follow)

[@reagankeith7715]

thank you, you just saved me a bunch of time.

[@writeousrhema]

Very helpful for my apologetics video!

[@asmanic8727]

Also, thanks for all the help on my last semester of undergrad for philosophy.

[@rehaanphansalkar4187]

Yuval Harari's counter to the appeal to nature: Anything that happens is natural. Society has never stopped people from running at the speed of light, or from photosynthesising.

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Interesting stuff !! This is great

[@scienceexplains302]

Identical twins are effectively clones.

[@couches]

Judge: Your finger prints were found on this gun that was used to kill the victim Me: Yea, but there's a chance that someone has the exact same finger prints as me Judge: There's a 1 in 28347120768203402876087203489790283798759832715198237987192870984712398 chance that it wasn't you, so it was definitely you Me: First of all, that's a lottery fallacy

[@kira10015]

thanks for your explanation it was easy to follow and clear :)

[@a.k.a.billthebusboy1996]

Enjoying this lecture for the second time. Taking exception for the second time at two points. First being that god either exists or does not. I'll posit that as subjectivity exists, it is an objective reality. Subjectivity isn't uniform among subjects, though. God may exist in one subjective perspective and not the other. Second is inspired by the use of the term "lucky". Luck, itself, is intangible. It is not an acceptable argument for how Bob won the lottery, anymore than "he was meant to", or "he cheated".

[@a.k.a.billthebusboy1996]

The external world exists. Because I sense it as reality, it is reality. What is presented to me, even if it is a projection from my mind, even if it's some program, is what I must respond to. What I'm saying is that it's reality because it is all I can perceive. There may, I'll suggest likely, be reality beyond what I sense. Further, I'm often certainly incorrectly getting the reality I perceive. It's still reality as i am not, or until I am, presented with anything that contradicts it.

[@michaelsowerby8198]

Bob's lottery ticket assumes a lottery ; a causal chance of an effect (the lottery, together with the ticket becomes the cause of 'something happening'-Bob's million-to-one win). In the case of the Universe, where the scientific evidence points to a beginning ex nihilo, there is no chance cause. So I believe it would be fallacious to argue similarly.

[@Biabia-e5n]

Interesting 🤔 I like it!

[@Momo_Z]

Thank you so much for uploading this videos!

[@johnmalcolm9980]

"If you are careful, you will avoid making false arguments" There is a difference between "This is how you avoid it" and "This will increase your chances of avoiding it"

[@keepsteddy]

The term "Halo Effect" is given to the concept of appealing to authority. 42:03 Better stated, the Halo Effect is the cause of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy

[@teachphilosophy]

Thanks. Whenever someone has a headache, tell them their halo is too tight. Great discussion starter. :)

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

You know what's interesting, when you talked about needing careful to ensure that we make exceptions for rules that should have exceptions; Allow me to slide into a brief philosophical discussion for a moment. This is why I have a serious problem with laws as they currently stand. Not just specific laws, but the concept of law in general. Now please I am not asserting that we should have no laws at all in society, that we should be a totally lawless, totally chaotic, totally formless society. First of all I don't think any of those have ever existed in human history and I'm not suggesting that we try to create one now. However I do have a problem with what I see in the US as too much law. The very essence of law states that something should always exist or something should never be allowed and anyone who violates this deserves to be punished in some fashion. Am I the only one that has a problem with this? I would certainly agree that a few minimal laws are important to the basic function and well-being in our society but the moment you step beyond that, I feel you start to create problems. Wonder if anyone else here agees. The essential concept of a law is absolutism and I'm not so sure I agree that most rules should be absolute. I can see a legitimate or agreeable exception to almost every law I've ever known in my lifetime, or every policy, or every procedure, and yet because of malicious political agendas (imo) no exceptions are allowed. I would definitely say on the political spectrum I lean towards left-based minarchism. With few exceptions I always feel that the best government is one that governs least. I believe that with rare exceptions human beings have the right to control themselves and make their own decisions; otherwise why are we here? Are we animals or are we people? Of course, as always, the devil's in the details and I do have my exceptions and of course we need to set aside some usable procedures and basic organization as we already have, but just as a basic governing principle that is where I stand. Just curious if anyone else here has ever felt like this. I literally oppose the concept of law in most, but not all, situations. Laws are absolutes and life is way too complicated and sometimes unfortunate to not produce a situation which in my eyes would either partially or fully justify a certain action that some authority somewhere would claim shouldn't be allowed. How can we choose to govern without allowing for understandable exceptions???

[@cindys9491]

(26:42) X either exists or it doesn't: would "X used to exist" fall under the category of "X does not exist," or does "X does not exist" imply that it never did exist?

[@isaacklanderud9773]

It is true that X does not exist if it used to exist. By stating "used" to exist is implying that it does not exist anymore. For example, if I said "It is true that George Washington exists or he does not exist". This is true because he does not exist. He used to exist but not anymore because he is dead. That's how I understand at least, let me know if you agree or disagree. :)

[@KlaasDeforche]

Awesome video, thanks.

[@Jaban_al_kurdi]

Love Your videos

[@johntho5674]

Sophists seem to like relativist fallacy; it seems to be one of the cornerstones.

[@cherrimaraschino176]

thank you so much for helping me on my midterm 💖💖

[@quakers200]

A case can be made for using any of the arguments. If someone contradicts himself frequently it may be valid to accept that he has a problem with other unrelated things. If an animal is doing things that are not natural for that animal, a bird not flying from danger that indicates a problem. Why they are called falaxces I don't know. Nothing wrong with being critical of them but sometimes they are good. Many of our arguments boil down to opinions with a small set of facts that often conform to our bias.

[@leezamarie9808]

Hi ! I love your informative videos. How can I get a copy of your book. Thanks !

[@cheatingwomen]

the laugh ..makes me laugh :D really awesome vids

[@teachphilosophy]

+Hailemelekot N. haha, thanks. lolwrotfgwg (laugh out loud while rolling on the floor giggling with glee)

[@1voluntaryist]

Is "human thinking" a redundant term, or do you attribute thinking to other species?

[@sarag1158]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have a college degree so I was not exposed to the concept of logical fallacies on school. I am, however, somewhat intellectually curious. I can understand why people who aren't educated fall into the trap of a certain online cult leader. hint: begins with the letter, "Q."

[@8bitdragoninstall182]

Deadheads aren’t all that different…

[@navis5284]

Was your logic book finally published?

[@matend8125]

thank you so much.wonderful stuff

[@williampennjr.4448]

Isn't Hypocrisy a fallacy? I never hear it listed as one. What about the hindsight fallacy, or the lack of media fallacy. Which is when someone argues their opponant doesnt oppose something because they never heard him oppose it in the media. How about the most obvious fallacy of all, Lying. When someone intentionally makes up facts, or over emphasizes selected facts while not mentioning others. ( lying by omission)?

[@naganandakk1510]

In cases where we are not sure whether something is a fallacy or not, what do we do? For example: If all parts are physical, is the whole physical? I thought we use 'common sense ' to decide. If we have to use common sense to decide on logical fallacies, why not use common sense directly instead of going through all the trouble of understanding logical fallacies? Did I make a fallacy in assuming black and while picture about use of common sense? All this makes me go mad. I give up thinking for now.

[@cesaresaladandthespicycrou4080]

In the division fallacy i think pizza is a somewhat of a paradox.

[@darahamidi]

Regarding the examples given for the relativistic Fallacy: There are still much we don't know regarding the reality in which we live in. One of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is quantum superposition which has been demonstrated time and again through the Double Slit Experiment among others. This principle in the quantum world means that particles exist at all different states at the same time. This raises the question of if this phenomenon at the quantum scale affects ordinary objects and if so how. Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment illustrates this problem quite well and there are different proposed solutions given by the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. For instance In the Copenhagen interpretation a system stops being in a state of superposition as soon as an observation has been made. So CONSIDERING ALL IDEAS god can both exist and not exist at the same time, and the table on the other side of the wall can both exist and not exist at the same time and therefor neither example given here are objectively true and all of reality could actually be subjective and observer dependent after all. Anyway, I understand what you are trying to get across and thank you for the great video.

[@teachphilosophy]

Thank you and thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think it is quite controversial as to how to interpret such things, but, whatever the case, I think it important to distinguish between relativism and skepticism and, of course, scientific forms of relativism from moral and cognitive relativism.

[@darahamidi]

By the way, in regards to the point I brought up earlier, are you committing the black and white fallacy, argument from ignorance fallacy, the hasty generalization fallacy, begging the question fallacy, or the relativistic fallacy itself? or all at once?

[@darahamidi]

or neither?

[@teachphilosophy]

:) The fallacy I fall for the most, I believe, is cherry picking.

[@darahamidi]

Thank you so much for all your great videos and quick replies. :)

[@fahmikemal4728]

Brain is physical but mind is a function of a soul. Dead body has a brain but not a soul. The issue with loaded question comes here if one is still looking for physical explanation for an existance of a soul.

[@ajhieb]

Great list. I would make a few minor changes to your Appeal to Authority fallacy. It's fallacious to present an authority's _opinion_ as if it is a fact. Full Stop. It doesn't matter how properly authoritative that person is, their opinion is still just an opinion. Conversely, if you're citing someone's work, it doesn't matter if they are an authority or not. What matters is they have the evidence to support their conclusions. This is why I try not to appeal to people at all, rather I point to the evidence and appeal to that.

[@mileskeller5244]

Would the appeal to nature also be a no true scotsman fallacy as you need to define natural before you start debating with your interlocketer?

[@VeryAverageGirl]

Amazing video. Really great! But please do research on audio. Ever few seconds it’s a bit too loud, and the sounds of you breathing and even spitting is blasted into our eyes ... it makes it hard to focus on the content

[@ripvanwinkle6449]

Sometimes, learning is a burden.

[@2Hesiod]

Educated people in Europe always knew the earth is a sphere because Aristotle proved it. There is a whole book on this.

[@pablord025]

Hello everyone, I'm no one, I just want to discuss. I'm feeling like there is a misunderstanding of relativism or rather an injust treatment. Here is what I mean. Relativism means that every opinions, and every truths are only true within the logic or the moral they come from. Saying what is true for me is false for you, we are both correct isn't relativism at all, and it is a fallacy. Relativism would say : What is true for me is false for you, because we do not share the same concept of what is true relatively to a system of thinking (moral or logic). And also it is pretty easy to understand that morals aren't objective and there are plurals ex: the law of the strongest disagree with the law of the United States, one can beat up a weaker being in the first, but not in the second. But it is slightly harder to see that logics can be plurals, but they are ex1: in math the logic to describe an object in 2D, isn't the same than to describe an object in 5D. ex2 (my fav) : something is either in a state 1 or B, but in quantum physicsics it can be in a state A/B, wich is impossible in algebra. Therfore it is important to know that it exist many system of thinking, that have different logic or morals or concept of truth. And to say one is better than an other, you need a system of thinking, wich means your opinion is relative to this system. Therefore objectivity does not exist following the logic of relativism. Now in a discussion, to decide if someone is wrong and someone is right two people must use the same system of thinking. If the two persons do not use the same the system, they won't be able to decide who is right or wrong but just compare their opinions. Something important note, real life discussions usually uses system of thinking that are not perfectly define, that are moving, and people can shape others with emotions that do not always come from thinking. Relativism isn't super practical to judge opinions, but useful to understand everyone has reasons to believe what they believe, even if they don't know them. Well I wasn't as clear as I wanted, sorry and good day

[@No_Avail]

35:10-35:40 Is it wrong to believe that this perfectly explains how the Nielsen Ratings system is premised on a giant _hasty_ _generalization_ fallacy? Because that's always been the takeaway for me.

[@badgescops1]

So philosophy like the 7 principles of hermeticism are pretty sound The Principle of Polarity embodies the idea that everything is dual, everything has two poles, and everything has its opposite.All manifested things have two sides, two aspects, or two poles. Everything "is" and "isn't" at the same time, all truths are but half truths and every truth is half false, there are two sides to everything, opposites are identical in nature yet different in degree, extremes meet, and all paradoxes may be reconciled.

[@ihavequestions6302]

When somebody commits an appeal to ambiguous authority, would it not be committing genetic fallacy to call their statement out as fallacious?

[@teachphilosophy]

Good question. You could think of the authority fallacy as being in the genetic family since it claims x is true because of its origin (whereas the genetic fallacy is usually the idea that x is false because of its origin). Of course, in logic, we want true premises and good inferences... instead of arguing from mere origins...

[@PhilosophicalMatter]

I liked your examples on circular reasoning, kinda made my brain lag.

[@nightmare_automata]

I know this is pedantic, and I really enjoyed this video, but saying that water is wet is equivalent to saying that fire is burnt. Water is not wet, it is a fluid substance which makes other materials wet as a relation, similar to how fire is not burnt, but is a process whereby other materials are burnt. This isn't meant to be a vain exercise in pedantry; I just think that you shouldn't have used the "wetness of water" in your examples for the Composition/Division Fallacies, especially because wetness *can* be explained by the properties of the parts in question. Better examples would've been: "This wall is made up of bricks, therefore, this wall is a brick"; Or, "My body is made up of cells, therefore, my body is a cell"; Alternatively, "The U.S. is a nation made up of people, therefore, its people are nations."

[@nyxicsulfur]

I disagree about the first part 'Water is wet' and 'fire is burnt' are two very different things Water can be wet from this perspective: we can consider one particular molecule or a bunch of molecules of X and claim that it is wet because it is surrounded by water. X is usually any material but if we consider X to be water itself, then we can rightfully claim that X ie water is wet. Fire is burnt on the other hand is wrong. That is because scientifically, its a SUBSTANCE that is being burned, not plasma ie fire itself. So fire is surrounded by fire but that does not mean that fire is burning. Water is surrounded by water so we can claim that water is wet.

[@daffdamann9374]

Great vid

[@davidhoffman6980]

Are all these "appeal to X" fallacies really individual discreet fallacies? They sound like really specific examples of the non sequitur fallacy. For any "appeal to X" fallacy, the fallacy is from the fact that X is either not true, or irrelevant, thus the conclusion doesn't follow.

[@johnmalcolm9980]

What was the argument for the idea that people 1000 years ago believed the Earth was flat?

[@christopherumpton3975]

As I understand it, the notion was contrived by Washington Irving to give his history of Christopher Columbus some flare.

[@rckli]

29:57 Consciousness is physical - it’s a process run by our brain much like How your computer’s software is run by the hardware You should verify some of the things you said here as there’s more that you stated were examples but were in fact not

[@maxma9326]

Hi, with the Ad hominem fallacy. Even though you said it is useful the jury to know the character of the person on trial and I get that they sometimes don't have any other choice, doesn't it still mean the jury is committing a fallacy? hence wrong logically?

[@teachphilosophy]

+Max Ma Hi Max , thanks for watching and for the question. Is it logical to trust a witness who has lied ten times before? A logical argument is one in which the premises provide good inductive or deductive support for the conclusion. So, if trustworthy witnesses testify to seeing him do it, would you consider that good evidence for the conclusion?

[@thenickening]

natural-ness and good/bad are separate measures. no need to combine. morality is subjective judgement. natural is objective reality.

[@hernansalazar5272]

Are you the man from thw viral video "I teach logic motherf'er"? Sounds a lot like him

[@acolytes777]

Excellent! I subbed

[@zer-op2gq]

One question on black and white thinking. God exists or god dose not exist; doesn't that disregard the possibility god did exist but no longer dose? I understand most god claims immortality is encompassed, but fear tip towing into a no black swan. I understand by that definition the god supposed no longer dose exist so the statement would still be sound. I still fear conviction beyond what is demonstrable materialisticly but in appeals to supernatural knowledge there is simply no way to rule anything out

[@benorozco4583]

What is a woman? A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Circular argument fallacy. Great scott! It all makes sense now.

[@dienekes4364]

_"Try to prove the external world exists without begging the question."_ -- I'm constantly surprised by reality (especially other people's behaviors). A) If what we think of as reality was really just a construct of my mind, why would I be surprised by it? B) I am constantly not only learning new things, but I'm learning about things that I didn't even know I didn't know about. C) I find that I am constantly wrong about things when I'm learning about them. To understand something takes an amount of study time. If reality was just a construct of my mind, it would stand to reason that I wouldn't ever be wrong about anything because my mind would understand it as soon as it created the concept.

[@woodworkinggunnybear581]

Ironic that the example used for slippery slope fallacy has proven that, in this case, it wasn't fallacious. People are marrying brooms and goats, and it is legal to chop off a child's dork, because he said he liked pink once.

[@TheHpsh]

think one of the most overlook fallacies is the fallacy fallacy

[@teachphilosophy]

+Hans PS Hansen Hi Hans, I agree... it's a good one to include.

[@alamedvav]

1. Other animals don't pen, breed, take the mother's young and systmaticly kill other animals as a cycle of life. So enjoy that cow, by all means.

[@jimbrausky]

people do use so many falacies and simplistic thinking. what is the real reason? mental laziness? or maybe our brain is lazy by nature and we have to force it to think more broadly

[@Steve-h-v]

People use so many fallacies because of their state education/ mimicry system based on the Prussian education system using the servile and utilitarian arts. The reason the liberal arts education was removed from the state education system. Because logical fallacies are everywhere in politics Science advertisements and mainstream media if people were taught the liberal arts education in their state education people would see it everywhere and not fall for the logical fallacies.

[@williamslover5864]

I may have missed this so ignore if so, but did you never go over ad hoc? You definitely should've.

[@christopherjordan9707]

Isn't EVERYTHING natural? What can be found on Earth that is supernatural?

[@teachphilosophy]

:) It depends on how you define natural. A tomato is natural because it is organic and can reproduce, but a tin can is not because it cannot reproduce. That is one meaning, but your comment brings up another problem: what one means by natural is often vague and so appealing to nature is just plain confusing.

[@jeffxanders3990]

In the dream of life, we're not the dreamer.

[@mohamedyusuf3078]

In your website there is little mistake on 19- is it appeal to inappropriate authority or appeal to authority. Obviously in this video you mean appeal to inappropriate

[@teachphilosophy]

Thanks, Mohamed. Where is the error? On the quizzes?

[@mohamedyusuf3078]

lucidphilosophy.com/19-appeal-to-authority/.Check (/19-appeal-to-authority/) Is it appeal to inappropriate authority or appeal to authority?.

[@teachphilosophy]

Thanks, I prefer appeal to authority, but there is variation in the textbooks. The reason I prefer appeal to auth is because arguments should appeal to evidence that is more causative, not authorities. Authorities don't make a claim true, evidence does. For example, "Vitamin C is good because my doctor said so." Even though my doc is not a dubious authority (he is a reputable authority and I trust him), that is not what makes it true that Vitamin C is good for me. A better argument for why vitamin C is good for me is because a chain reaction in the liver which leads to x, y, z,.... and also prevents rickets because it...

[@indricotherium4802]

Winning this negotiation will be easy because they need a deal more than we do.

[@aregawiatsbha2556]

thanks

[@davesiegal3592]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[@MetaKnight964]

Some ideas should be criticized based on their origin. Also allowing homosexuals to marry actually did give rise to fetishists wanting the same thing.

[@DarkSkay]

The Gods exist and they say eating cows is morally neutral

[@omargoodman2999]

"Playing God" fallacy: "You can't legalize euthenasia because it would allow doctors to play God." "But God acts through us, so how do you know it isn't God's will that we legalize and perform euthenasia? If you prevent it, then *you* are 'playing God'."

[@8bitdragoninstall182]

😂

[@davidhoffman6980]

I'm getting tired of people who should know better calling the "slippery slope fallacy" a fallacy. Everyone who talks about it say it's a fallacy because the premises are unwarranted. Unfortunately for them, a fallacy isn't a valid argument with untrue/unwarranted premises (if it were then the following syllogism would be invalid: P1 all men are immortal. P2 Socrates is a man. C therefore Socrates is immortal); a fallacy is an argument where true premises can lead to a false conclusion. A slippery slope is just a hypothetical syllogism or a compound hypothetical syllogism that takes the form: If A, then B, if B, then C. Therefore if A the C. The structure is valid. If you disagree with the premises a person offers then you should call it an unsound argument rather than a fallacy. Additionally, most of the examples you gave weren't even arguments but just hypothetical statements: "If we allow homosexual marriage, then pretty soon people will start marrying trees etc..." If A, then B. In short, the "slippery slope fallacy" is just a renaming of the hypothetical syllogism and isn't a fallacy at all. Thanks for reading.

[@teachphilosophy]

David, thanks. I agree with your reasoning if we define fallacy in that way. When I define fallacy in that way, I must omit the slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. However, most textbooks and authors are now using a broader definition of fallacy, which can be found here in section 4: iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SlipperySlope

[@marcelliss]

Overall great video. I would comment on the lottery fallacy. The argument from fine tuning is highlighting two features which you did not comment on but is germaine. To illustrate with a lottery example, if winning the lottery happens 1 in 1x10^8 we have a narrow chance event, to which you would agree. But if someone wins the lottery 3 times in a row, one could argue that we have a narrow chance event again, 1 in 1x10^24. But we also have something else. We have the first of two features in this occurrence. First, 3 narrow chance events that are unrelated but now occurring together. And the second feature, that is these narrow events now tied together mean something. It means something that the same person keeps winning in an event that benefits them monetarily and consequences everyone else. After 3 wins by the same person, one is a bit of a fool to think that the lottery is not rigged, that is that some form of intelligence is not coordinating the outcome. Same thing if we play poker for money and I deal my self 20 Royal Flushes in a row. You claim I am cheating and I say well chance things happen. One is pretty naive to accept that. These two features are also in the fine tuning of the universe except the narrowness of the range is far far greater such that the force of gravity 1in1x10^100, or nuclear weak force 1in1x10^100, or cosmological force 1in1x10^60 , or initial entropy within the universe 1in1x10^10^123 etc each on their own are unrelated to one another. And their is a meaning behind this as well. If this wasn't the case, carbon base life could not exist, that is we would not exist. This leads to the high probability that some intelligence is behind the engineering of the universe.

[@johnmalcolm9980]

If out of a billion planets, one spawned sentient beings by pure chance, those beings could then use your argument. (I am only talking about the logic, not denying that non-material entities exist)

[@Elround4]

Out of curiosity, are Fallacies primarily bad inferences? I've just recently got around to reading your logic book and wanted to ask this before I go further.

[@teachphilosophy]

+Elround4 Yes, logicians mean bad inferences when they speak of fallacies. In everyday discourse, nonlogicians mean bad inferences as well as false premises/statements. In formal logic especially, a fallacy is only a bad inference (e.g. All b are a since all a are b).

[@Elround4]

teachphilosophy Thanks. ^^ I might post more questions later on as I continue to read the book.

[@teachphilosophy]

Thanks for reading. :)

[@captaindan151]

Broken stoves can't burn your hand.

[@GastonNaboulet]

There is also the positive ad hominem fallacy: the belief that everything said by someone with fame and prestige is correct. Slippery slope works both ways. "If they agreed to gay marriage, let's go for the raccoons". Real argument from ignorance: "I don't know, so no one can know". Cherry picking: "We fight CO2 while 70% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor". #8: A variant of phenomenology. No one can prove for himself that the outside world exists. Others do it for you.

[@elkealbrich5380]

♥

[@asmanic8727]

Analytical claims are the only claim that can have the relativist fallcey