19 Common Fallacies, Explained.

A quick guide to logical fallacies. Fallacies include ad hominem, appeals to authority, the fallacy fallacy, circular arguments, etc.
Try this logic textbook: forallx.openlo...
→ Links
Patreon: patreon.com/_jared
Discord: Discord: / discord
Newsletter:jaredhenderson.substack.com
Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
Second channel: / @jaredreads
→ Video Gear
Mic: amzn.to/3Uw7ZVw
Recorder: amzn.to/3Tz1uQp
Camera: amzn.to/3Ust3MT
Camera (upgrade): amzn.to/3EFGW4e
Lens: amzn.to/3WXbAhd
Lens (upgrade): amzn.to/3SA49KM
These are affiliate links with Amazon. The channel earns a commission from each purchase - but it doesn't cost you anything.

[@_jared]

If you listen closely, you'll hear me claim that Richard Nixon walked on the moon. Perhaps it was a mistake, or perhaps it was a way of subtly reminding you that you shouldn't believe everything you hear on the internet. I also wish I had made a distinction between formal and informal fallacies. Maybe this deserves a much longer video.

[@jayplay8140]

thats EXACTLY what Nixon would say! nice try ...

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

LOL

[@KipVaughan]

Given that you made this comment 50 minutes ago and posted the whole video 46 minutes ago that suggests to me that you knew about the Nixon statement at least four minutes before the video went public.

[@GeeIWonderWhy]

That’s a fallacy. It could be both. It could be none. Bring me a better third candidate!

[@aaronrobertleyva9236]

@@KipVaughan It was indeed known being that the video was edited before it was uploaded.

[@dienekes4364]

0:50 - Ad Hominem 1:22 - Strawman 1:47 - Appeal to Authority 1:12 - False Dilemma 2:39 - Equivocation 3:12 - Circular Argument 3:54 - Hasty Generalization 4:03 - Comparative Fallacy 4:29 - Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc 4:58 - Appeal to Ignorance 5:10 - Appeal to Nature 5:34 - Appeal to Popularity 5:51 - Guilt by Association 6:06 - No True Scotsman 6:27 - Fallacy of Composition 6:33 - Fallacy of Division 6:38 - Appeal to Hypocrisy 6:59 - Burden of Proof Fallacy 7:18 - The Fallacy Fallacy

[@taiziamorris7862]

✨I think you dropped this✨👑 Seriously though, I had to watch this for a class, and I was really hoping there was one of these comments here.. You're the best!

[@dienekes4364]

@@taiziamorris7862 -- I'm glad I could help. 😉

[@dienekes4364]

@@mikecollon100 -- It's so funny to me to see someone calling out "the other guys" but have drank so much kool-aide that they think "their side" are perfect puritans. Thanks for showing us the delusion of _YOUR_ side of the Money Party.

[@dienekes4364]

@@mikecollon100 -- _"I don’t think some of these qualify as a fallacy."_ -- That's because you don't understand what a fallacy is. When we talk about fallacies in this context, we are talking about the soundness of an argument. From Purdue University: _Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument._ _"For instance an ad hominem is really just a diversion not a fallacy."_ -- In a debate, an ad hominem attack is when someone tries to convince _THE AUDIENCE_ that someone's argument is unsound because of some character flaw in the opponent. Hence, it is a _FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT._

[@dienekes4364]

@@mikecollon100 -- _"I don’t think some of these qualify as a fallacy. For instance an ad hominem"_ -- Also, this certainly can be fallacious thinking. For example, I'm betting you think that Obama was a "Socialist". I hear that a lot from right-wingers. The fact that he bragged about his policies being Right-wing is completely ignored by the Right because they couldn't stand the idea of a nigger being president. Religitards subconsciously ignore the _MOUNTAINS_ of evidence against their religion by demonizing anyone who exposes them to any piece of that evidence. Far too many people off-handedly dismiss any evidence that is coming from someone they don't like based on some characteristic (even if they have to make something up) of the person who is delivering that evidence.

[@BrianBrayMedia]

I like that you included the fallacy fallacy. It's something that debaters waiting to pounce on a logical fantasy often forget: that someone who uses a logical fallacy isn't automatically precluded from being right in their overall position.

[@mongoose6685]

However, it does mean they should structure their argument more efficiently and limit themselves to what can be argued.

[@nickjohnson1178]

This is basically all Reddit arguments

[@trevordillon1921]

@@mongoose6685it’s not entirely realistic to expect that though. A better way to handle that would be to call out the fallacious argument, not with the intent to invalidate the entire point, but instead to leverage them into making a more solid argument.

[@mongoose6685]

@@trevordillon1921 Same difference.

[@42roadsforman]

Yeah it just means they made a bad argument

[@flyingsodwai1382]

Thanks for not having a useless intro sequence and instead just starting at the start of the video. Love it.

[@simonbarry6582]

This is the best video I've listened to in a long time, you express a lot of veey relevant and useful communication concepts in a short space of time - and you do it clearly and with balance. Thank you.

[@bobs5624]

I enjoy how you get to the point and so value our time

[@Heathen.Deity.]

I’m always looking to improve my reasoning and argumentation - even if it’s with myself as a little introspection bash. This video is excellent for breaking each item down succinctly. I also chuckled at the example for the circular argument, as the most common instance I’ve come across this issue is exactly that.

[@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904]

People who are possessed by the devil typically mock and ridicule biblical logic and wisdom. The yoke that lucifer has on them causes them to be suspicious of people and to have cognitive dissonance in recognising their possession. It gets masked in comedic interpretation.

[@interesting391]

Political debates use these as their primary source of arguments.

[@joe18750]

Lol, thank you Captain Obvious.

[@hi3694]

This was really great. Thanks for making it. I struggle with communicating effectively. I have ideas I think are extremely valuable to share and hear some statements that I feel warrant some challenging... but my communication skills are lacking and I've damaged my reputation in some respects by asserting some claims and being unable to back it up so it just makes me look like a nutjob umming and aahing through a rushed justification of why I think the way I do, discrediting myself in the process. Instead I should be fortifying my arguments objectively so that the argument exists external to my emotions which get in the way. When you're unable to box your ideas into an airtight delivery it feels like you're exposing your incompetency. I've heard that the written word is basically capturing your best ideas. You put the idea down and can then refine it and critique it, challenge its parts to find your weak spots. I get this for writing, but for verbal communications I've found it immensely more challenging and have opted too often to just stay in my lane and taking a "whatever"/"it is what it is" approach. Your worldview shapes your intuition about a whole variety of topics, but like you said with the appeal to popularity, it can be easy for widespread incorrect/unsubstantiated beliefs to persist. When you're challenging the weight of incredibly popular beliefs it's especially difficult - like trying to put out a housefire with a water pistol.

[@exemplify6593]

I have struggled with this to such an immense degree. I attribute it to the anxiety I experience when subject to confrontation :(. It's so difficult to refine my argument enough to feel comfortable with sharing it verbally; it is so much easier and more comfortable to structure it in some form of writing. I have taken this route many times when I have deemed the argument very important to be made - such as when I have a meaningful disagreement with someone I love and I feel the need to try to share with them another perspective. I love to argue, but the anxiety of confrontation kills my confidence which, in the hearts and minds of those listening, kills my argument!

[@Joshs8707]

Hey really want to mind u that you are not alone, I haven't met much people, if not none, can communicate effectively at a philosophically argumentative level. View as and also keep in mind that this is a real-life Oddesey taken on by you and the rest of us who truly value communications of intellectual kinds, and for which numerous parameters are needed to move on. As such, frustration and other states of struggling and doubting present themselves all along, just take a breath and trust no less of your love that has paved your way to this day for the pursuit of knowledge. Life baffles each individual and put to test our hope, nonetheless persevering with your hard work and eventually you will make progresses.

[@alex.g7317]

Literally me:

[@machtnichtsseimann]

Can relate. In one-on-one conversations my anxiety still cuts off my more refined points to where I am just sucking up to the impatience of the listener, including friends. Partly to blame is our society with its 24 hour news cycle and its Soundbyte Debates. Ridiculous when discussing complex matters. Also, it is a long journey of developing one's voice, especially when it comes to matters of truth, intimacy, divulging one's innermost convictions. The risk of scorn and rejection are a part of life, though it can still smart. Personally, I've challenged myself to continue past the Fear of Rejection to being assertive, embracing the costs, while striving to be discerning of different approaches and styles. The resulting increasing confidence over many, many years is gratifying, though there is still more work to be done, not all anxiety has left the room. I've still walked away from a conversation with a certain friend shaking my head in consternation over how I rushed out an opinion without calming down and stating clearly and effectively what what on my mind and heart to say. Backed up with a quote or research study or just simply my personal observations. It's a Journey, but still, contributing to a conversation what I honestly believe to be True is what Life is about, right?

[@timkbirchico8542]

never lose your cool. it weakens or destroys the presentation of your ideas. be aware of the depth of those popular beliefs. be gently persuasive. head on confrontation only entrenches your opponent. stay cool, informed and eloquent. x

[@blurrylights6344]

This was great. Direct and to the point. My MIL made some ridiculous accusations to me about something I was doing (it was a while ago and too idiotic to remember the details) . When she finished, she looked at me expecting me to start defending myself but instead I said nothing. She worked up another full head of steam over that and asked "Why aren't you saying anything?" to which I responded "You're the one making the accusation so you're the one who has to back it up." She was stunned and wanted to know where I learned that like it was some new heresy. I told her it was a basic rule of life. Score! A logical argument inside a disagreement type argument. Ahahaha. 😅 edits for spelling

[@thebitterbeginning]

Once you read about all of the popular logical fallacies, you see them everywhere and you can't unsee them. All students ought to pass rigorous testing on this stuff to graduate from high school. Our "education" system doesn't seem interesting in teaching how to think; just "what" to think. Thanks for the video!

[@bohanxu6125]

"All students ought to pass rigorous testing on this stuff to graduate from high school." I feel the same. I also feel the following three types of reasoning should be taught: 1. simple proof based mathematic (rigorous as well as useful). 2. everyday formal logic that philosophers use (rigorous... but not very useful because everyday statements are too complicated to be put into rigorous form in a useful way... no offense to philosophers...) 3. everyday heuristics. (useful but not rigorous). 1. and 2. are ways to show how hard it is to reach rigor... it is hard in math. it is nearly impossibly difficult in everyday issues (in a useful way) They are taught in order for people to realize our everyday heuristic 3. can easily be wrong. Hopefully people can know how to judge their uncertainty better through those education.

[@100perdido]

That would depend on who you want to know knows what. Our entire political and economic system depends on people falling for various fallacies and the whole thing might collapse if people stop believing. But the flip side is that if you can keep people believing nonsense on a mass scale for long enough, the entire society goes insane from the gas lighting. Imagine a society which was devoted to telling the truth as often as possible. That ain't easy even if you try.

[@GatoMeow-d3d]

It wouldn't help, You are asking young people who have been lied about everything to all of a sudden use this metric to have sound arguments. You have a better chance clicking your red shoes Dorothy.

[@mark4asp]

@@bohanxu6125 I have no disagreement regarding those 3 methods of reasoning. But, everyone should also be taught basic scientific reasoning (how to experiment, how to hold a variable constant, how to infer a scientific law), as well as reasoning from empirical evidence (how to apply actually existing evidence). Add those as 4., and 5. Another idea I have is to take actual policy debates, and redo them - to take arguments which politicos actually used, in reality, to decide policy and reapply them to look for flaws and or improvements to their arguments. Nearly all university degree students should also study statistics too. Note: "simple proof based mathematic" reasoning (such as proof by induction?), is harder than you think. If mathematicians find it hard, imagine how hard it'll be for the rest of us?

[@Slo-ryde]

Curriculum are determined by each state in the US….the more conservative states would dread the notion of their people being able to think critically !

[@100perdido]

Thank you for clarifying the definition of "begging the question". Another thing many of us could use help with is the question of "proving a negative".

[@Loctorak]

Proving negatives is a fallacy because there is no way to definitively prove any hypothesis when the premise is negative like that. "The universe contains no planet-sized, red balloons" Obviously that's most likely a true statement, but to prove it you would literally need to map and catalogue the _whole_ universe, which is impossible. If you didn't, you cant disprove my statement because it's technically true that no matter how much of the universe you've recorded, any spot you haven't _could_ theoretically contain the universe's one and only planet-sized red balloon. PS - I'm obviously considering the universe as functionally infinite for the purpose of this example

[@user-ei9ns9hq6b]

@@Loctorak if you think that's a fallacy you don't understand what fallacies are.

[@user-ei9ns9hq6b]

@@Loctorak Example: the universe contains no square circles. This is obviously true and is proven true because a circle by definition has no angles while a square by definition has four 90 degree angles.

[@ribbonsofnight]

@@Loctorak In the field of Mathematics you can prove all sorts of negative statements (over infinite sets of numbers even), because in mathematics we all agree on our axioms.

[@Byfleetboy]

Such a shame about "begging the question" but you are right that the phrase has been lost to linguistic ignorance.

[@2adamast]

I see it as a phrase with two possible meaning: One, It's a fallacy because it's a fallacy Two, given your claim I am bound to ask you (you beg me the question) are you sure about *their* linguistic ignorance?

[@awalton9024]

@@2adamast Linguistic ignorance? No. It' outright stupidity.

[@darlenecuker9711]

When anyone says “this begs the question” improperly, I stop paying attention. You can’t explain that it is a logical fallacy. They think it makes them sound intelligent.

[@awalton9024]

@@darlenecuker9711 Thank you! That's it exactly.

[@susiemilligan7220]

I've taken classes in logic and I didn't know this. Thanks!

[@neilifill4819]

I must listen to this again. I significantly scaled back participation on social media because some people decompose into name calling and othering (and sometimes rather quickly!) when you disagree with them.

[@jahidoyon4614]

Enjoyed learning about logical fallacies. Being a law student, I feel I can make good use of the learnings... I added in my task list to learn more about logical fallacies. More detailed videos on the topic shall be highly appreciated. Best Regards from 🇧🇩

[@briseboy]

Manipulation of and through language is called rhetoric, and is NOT congruent with fact OR reality. While we humans manipulate to a greater extent than do other organisms, consider that utilitarian goals may not coincide with ethical values.

[@ExposedRoot]

I bet you will and hopefully in a positive manner.

[@deathorb]

Here's a good one, if someone is found guilty of a crime and you get them sent to jail or punished, have you done the right thing?

[@richardschatz9992]

I've been wanting a video that briefly and concisely sums up fallacies. Thanks for providing that. Nicely done.

[@karabenomar]

Thanks for pointing these out! I've been using some of these in arguments and I'm now realizing how wrong I was. I'm hoping to be become more truthful and better at debating. ...said no one ever

[@SoftCouch]

Umm...I say this🤷🏾‍♂️

[@Dr_Wrong]

_"I'm hoping to be become more truthful and better at debating."_ If you say this, it's not "debating" that you want ; it's learning, or even mutually agreeable consensus.. But definitely not debating. Debates are ONLY won with fallacies.. or better hair..

[@anotherinternetlurker6248]

I recently learned about these, and I wish I learned them earlier. Now it' much easier to detect, define, and counter people's erroneous thought processes, especially on social media.

[@___dh__dh__]

It’s crazy how many of these are committed night in and night out on cable news shows but people continue to tune in

[@mikefriedman8320]

stock in trade, by design

[@filipjuriga5278]

People out there truly believing that Richard Nixon was not the first person to walk on the moon🙄

[@_jared]

It’s the scandal of the century

[@MrPodvig]

But that wasn't the real Richard Nixon.

[@csm5040]

Let’s take a look at the evidence and logic… The Moon has a surface. Planet Earth has a surface. A person can walk on the surface of planet Earth. Nixon was a person. Therefore it is only logical to assume that Nixon walked on the Moon.

[@lIII0IIIl]

People out there truly believing that Richard Nixon and the Moon are real…

[@user-cvbnm]

⁠@@csm5040ERROR: Fallacy detected! Fallacy used: Texas sharpshooter fallacy

[@ladysphinx5908]

Just scanned through the book and I'm going to enjoy reading it. I love how there's a version for dyslexic people. Going to make it so much easier to work through it.

[@SimplicityForGood]

this man is amazing, no wonder you are a professor!! if all teachers were like this! thanks for keeping your channel fallacy free! 😇😅😘

[@ver-il6pc]

Many people aren't aware that they commit one or more of the logical fallacies mentioned in the video

[@RK-um9tu]

What is amazing about reading stuff out of a book?

[@terryforshee5203]

Appeal to popularity fallacy

[@Oneiroclast]

A particularly common form of equivocation that could probably get its own fallacy is with the word "normal". It means both "common" and "acceptable", which is the basis of arguments of two forms. Both in the form of "lots of people do X, X is normal, so X is good", and "very few people do X, X is not normal, so X is bad."

[@alansmith4748]

I quite agree

[@joshmoonXY]

"normal" also extends beyond social topics. Like what is normal biologically or physically to X or Y. For example. It is "normal" for Lions time because x,y,z. Or it is "normal" for a lot of bird species for the males to be more colorful feathers. And for females, plain. Normal can also mean consistency. Unrelated to what is good or bad like human socialization.

[@lukedmoss]

Thanks for this resource! Clear and concise. I appreciate your content and collected thoughts. I'd love a separate video too, if you feel so inspired, about how you address fallacies in day-to-day life... I recognize that's a lot of work, but at least I personally do find it highly interesting and engaging. Common patterns that will lead you astray~logical fallacies. How do you view these as related to cognitive biases? I personally find them very similar but are not necessarily linked as they exist in different contexts. But the interplay between theory and practice is engaging for me.

[@the_artisan]

That's exactly the example I use to explain circular reasoning to my students, and I also try and teach them to say raising the question when they mean bringing something up rather than begging the question! I know, it's a losing battle....

[@briseboy]

Interestingly, to beg and to pray had identical meanings in older English. Both refer to politely demand.

[@terryboland3816]

Circular reasoning is obviously wrong because assuming the truth of what you need to prove is simply circular reasoning.

[@PeerAdder]

@@briseboy I beg to differ. Actually, I don't, it's just an example of the same use of the word beg in modern English. And, pray tell, have you never heard anyone say "pray tell"?

[@PeopleAlreadyDidThis]

...a losing battle, alongside the long lost battle of “its” versus “it’s,” to/too/two, there/their/they’re, your/you’re....

[@ribbonsofnight]

@@PeopleAlreadyDidThis it won't be long before everything is a looooosing battle.

[@8882keithio]

Everybody should be taught this in school. It would make it much harder to mislead people with trashy arguments.

[@g_g...]

But then teachers and parents won't be able to indoctrinate their kids with whatever they want 😡

[@shermans8236]

I had a class like this

[@snappycattimesten]

Majority would still be misled because education doesn’t fix stupid.

[@mylesleggette7520]

Just because you teach it doesn't mean students will learn it.

[@jamespower5165]

No. In fact the effect of teaching people the names of some common fallacies has made internet debate much worse because people are only interested in catching their opponents out in fallacies. First of all, there are infinitely many kinds of mistakes you can make in argument. Obviously not all of them have names. Secondly, the correct way to debate is to carefully listen to your opponents, reframe their arguments in their strongest form and then respond to those. If you don't think your opponent deserves this consideration, you had best not talk to them at all. This business of focusing on a few named fallacies instead of respectfully and attentively engaging in the discussion is a net negative to the quality of internet debate

[@klashe1977]

Click the video...bam....right to the point. no intro, no ten minute history of fallacies throughout history. Perfect construction. Thank you.

[@matthews2122]

Thank you for making the video. I think it would be a great idea to make a longer video showing actual examples. Possibly multiple examples for each one with a wide range.

[@phillipdavidhaskett7513]

My 1979 freshman Intro to logic class has been more valuable than anything else I've ever studied. Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Hypothetical Syllogism, and all the rest of the formal logic proofs have been useful, but the linguistic fallacies discussed here were absolute gold. Love IS a fallacy.

[@wooddoc5956]

In my classes, my students had several topics that they could write essays on, including Logical fallacies. In six years no one ever picked them.

[@not_glad]

I'd choose that question, I got hooked on them after reading Aristotle. I assume people dislike learning how often they've been persuaded by a fallacious argument, or how poorly they've been arguing themselves, but I'm just guessing. What's the course you teach?

[@wooddoc5956]

@@not_glad So true. My best friend and I loved to debate all kinds of things but when I put names to the fallacies he was using he didn't appreciate it. Believe it or not I taught an anatomy and physiology course but the college wanted at least one paper that demonstrated critical thinking.

[@wooddoc5956]

@@alpha1solace Don't be so hard on yourself. You'd be surprised how many people just want something to stimulate them. Be the guy that puts ideas in their head. It took me years before I had the confidence to stand in front of a college classroom and get over my imposter syndrome.

[@johnhoward1181]

You'll noticed that all politicians do exactly the opposite of Mr. Henderson's advice.

[@coltonhurley4804]

I remember receiving a note from one of my professors on the usage of the phrase "begging the question", which he said essentially affirms the antecedent (if I remember correctly). One less person using it incorrectly now!

[@lagansharma-cc9ll]

Politicians already know all of these and use them regularly

[@WWYG316]

“Wide spread believes could be false” is a great pivoting point to make.

[@ClassicFantastic5028]

“We should aspire to be as non-violent as possible.” That’s a hasty generalization there friend.

[@grisslebear]

I want world peace, & I'm willing to go to war to get it!!!

[@Luke-open-minded-sceptic]

yes because if it is at the cost of important things like length or quality of life, or safety of children then it would not be the priority. It is very possible to be a non violent slave, way more difficult being a non violent freeman, who is undergoing enslavement.

[@DanceGeekRob]

Thanks for getting straight to the point… defining the different fallacies.

[@multi-purposebiped7419]

Is there something like an "assumption that an irrational arguer will be swayed by having their fallacies pointed out" fallacy?

[@engineeringoyster6243]

One of my favorite classes as a college freshman was Introduction to Logic. A philosophy class. It was course number 110. When I transferred to another college to major in engineering, the 2nd school assessed my transcript, giving me generally the expected credit for classes taken at the 1st college. But they assessed course 110 as 101, Introduction to Philosophy. The Logic class is legitimately a Social Science class while the Philosophy class is a Humanities class. Thus, the logic class resulted in me only taking 1 humanities class in my entire college career.

[@TheMikeest]

This is actually educational. How pleasant 😊

[@cargopilot747]

“Is this the right room for an argument?” “I’ve told you once.”

[@thomasmiddlebrooke1012]

"no you haven't!"

[@utopianna]

My mother always said to me "You'd argue with a sign and take the wrong road anyway." Which only led to a further argument. I made an outline with notes as I listened (pausing to let it sink in). Having these fallacies labeled and defined is very helpful. Saved the vid and downloaded the book. This presentation was well presented and if the President walked on the moon, he did nothing wrong because he's the President. 😉

[@rocketmanshawn]

There was an origin of life (early earth chemistry) debate last night between Dr. James Tour and Dave Farina. It was a total train wreck and rife with logical fallacy.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

exactly, I could not watch the thing, it was an error to me that James Tour stooped so low to mix it with someone whose greatest expertise is regurgitating half-digested things he has just read in a textbook to create content, and throwing ad hom shade on all comers who seek rational debate, Tour most of all

[@piehound]

Good list, thanks. I've read and heard others. Though i believe to have good arguments they should take place in a controlled environment. Such as (1) a book or a scholarly paper. (2) A formal debate. (3) A court room. (4) A town meeting or other public forum with moderators. (5) A classroom of advanced students. (6) Interviews. Provoking arguments with friends, family members, strangers, and other unprepared participants is a recipe for trouble to say the least. And yes i took note of your Nixon flub.

[@ribbonsofnight]

We've only got worse at allowing argument to be civil in those places

[@matthewdecordova]

Now, I can’t get the image of Nixon on the moon out of my head. Thanks.

[@waggishsagacity7947]

This was really good. Just listing these fallacies and explaining them reminded me (and others, I imagine) that our arguments sometimes, but hopefully, not often) deserve a better treatment and greater care. Thanks very mucjh.

[@mmurqus6560]

As an old philosophy/logic student, it was heartening to hear you mention "begging the question" as another name of the circular argument because I am tired of hearing people say "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question." But I am sad to hear you say we've lost that linguistic fight. I wish I knew who was the ignoramus who first said this and opened the foodgates of ignorance on the world because I would like to tell him/her a few words!

[@vibovitold]

I'm not a native English speaker and I admit this is news to me. The widespread meaning you're complaining about is sanctioned by the dictionaries though, isn't it? I've looked it up in a few just to check

[@mmurqus6560]

​@@vibovitold I have not seen any dictionary "sanctioning" this faulty use though it is becoming trendy for reference sources nowadays to succumb to ignorant usage and include it as current trends. It is a symptom of the general decline in education, scholarship and even morals!

[@Salex684]

I’m a pharmacist and appreciate knowing there’s a term “appeal to nature.” That has to be the most common fallacy people make about medicine. I try to remind people heroin and ricin are natural too 😂

[@chucklakeridge7944]

If I follow you correctly, you are saying I should not put hemlock in my Caesar salad?

[@rocoe9019]

😂 as a pharmacist you should know that heroin is not natural! It is a semi-synthetic, it is chemically processed, you wouldn't call hash natural ! And ricin is a toxin / poison not a medicine, as a pharmacist your analogy sucks 😂

[@chucklakeridge7944]

@@rocoe9019 Thanks for adding SOOOOO MUCH positivity to the conversation, Trollski. Now go back to your bridge and wait for your next meal.

[@rocoe9019]

@@chucklakeridge7944 poor baby got triggered by facts 😢 only one troll here snowflake and that's you hypocrite 🤣

[@mongoose6685]

Most pharma pills are synthetic conglomerates of natural elements... pharmacists often hate hearing that one

[@vintlulu]

Man, you really spent time explaining the ones I've heard and brushed over ones that were new to me without giving examples in the end there.

[@MisterReZ]

Another fallacy I've seen a lot is to assume correlation as causation.

[@Fanatical_Empathy]

3:55 it's more like self reference. Somthing that uses its self as a source cannot be substantiated. It is a circular argument.

[@craigschaffert]

False dilemma: Ban guns or face more gun violence.

[@hiramhackenbacker9096]

Backed up by examples worldwide

[@gregbors8364]

That’s also a good example of a straw man fallacy. Very few people want to ban all guns. But the majority of Americans want more restrictions on gun usage than exist at the moment.

[@matthewscott4629]

​@@gregbors8364restrict who?

[@gregbors8364]

@@matthewscott4629 Example: most Americans support universal background checks for gun sales, which isn’t a thing right now

[@hiramhackenbacker9096]

@@gregbors8364 yes and in fact that is what those other countries I'm alluding too did. They introduced sensible regulations and they've reaped the benefits.

[@Arcandumb]

I’m new to your channel and just wanted to say thank you for creating such great content. I’m learning a lot and appreciate your insights, lessons, and reading suggestions.

[@Ohwhin]

Western society has largely been built on the appeal to authority falacy for the last 100 years and has lead to predictable results.

[@view1st]

2000 years if you take into account the effect that Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox) has had on European societies.

[@Apjooz]

1) We have been getting rid of authorities (when it comes to facts) for centuries. 2) What were the results?

[@pawelpap9]

@@view1stYou may want to consider the fact there were no European societies before the advent of Christianity.

[@knowthycell]

@@view1stohhhh the days before Christianity when men had the right to ‘enter’ whoever they had power over.

[@PeerAdder]

@@pawelpap9 you might want to check out the Greek and Roman empires for starters.

[@mattmartin7065]

Just came across your post and definitely had to subscribe. Great video!

[@adamjosey1543]

The best way to argue is to not.

[@joe18750]

You've drawn the conclusion that nothing is worth fighting for. What a vacuist life you must have.

[@adamjosey1543]

@@joe18750 yep, just the way I like it.

[@colinmunro2632]

Finally the source of the politicians' playbook - the 19 logical fallacies.

[@sneakyquick]

I am a democrat therefore I am smart.....

[@CC-iu7sq]

Wish you would’ve touched on Genetic Fallacy! While close to Guilty by association or Poison the well, it’s very distinct and personally I love using it in my rebuttals.

[@cthoadmin7458]

Funny how so many fallacies are found in the argumentation and apologetics associated with religion.

[@terryboland3816]

Funny how so many fallacies are found in the argumentation and apologetics associated with atheism.

[@pawelpap9]

Morality is not based on logic. Very few human endeavors are.

[@gregbors8364]

@@terryboland3816That’s why I say I’m an agnostic, and not an atheist

[@pawelpap9]

@@gregbors8364 If you are an agnostic as you say you should not post thoughtless comments about religion. After all, based on your beliefs, there is 50% chance religion is the correct worldview.

[@rowdy3837]

@@terryboland3816To be fair, he did skip the false equivalence fallacy.

[@thereligionofrationality8257]

The validity of an argument is independent of the credentials of the person making the argument. This is the fundamental idea behind the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy; it works both ways. As an example, during the "pandemic," the Media and Government discounted the valid observations of many medical professionals because said observations were made by "mere" doctors, not actual epidemiologists.

[@watteau6646]

The "hasty generalization" was a bit hasty-- 5 seconds on that! But seriously, this is good stuff--all the fallacies are clearly and concisely explained. And thank you for exposing the annoying misuse of "begging the question"!

[@Rondo2ooo]

The first item on the list of logical fallacies is already the 99% of comment sections in social media.

[@stevewardlaw]

You forgot the Mr. Monk Fallacy - never end a list on a 9

[@SemiPolymath]

Some of the most subtle logical fallacy forms are inadvertent. I recall attending a water quality conference where the organizers had wanted to bring the public and researchers together. Toward the end of the conference, someone in the audience pointed out that members of the public consistently used "quality" in water quality to subjectively describe how healthy water was for people or the environment. Researchers, however, used "quality" to describe objective, measurable characteristics. Equivocation was rampant when both definitions were used in the same arguments. In the closing remarks, the conference organizers repeated this point, and I wonder if it wasn't the most important outcome from bringing the two groups together.

[@davidnorman6348]

Clearly explained and highly comprehensible. I have encountered them all and been guilty of some, but I was unaware that these strategies all have names. Thank you!

[@mikehenry79]

The efficiency in this video is great. That said, I do think more videos like this should pound the table a bit more on “the fallacy fallacy”-that your opponent is engaged in fallacious reasoning doesn’t mean they’re wrong, just that their argument doesn’t work.

[@mainstay.]

This helps ( if I can remember them) I can usually "know it when I see it" kinda thing but I because I can't quickly articulate it I tend to be told that I have lost the argument - I'm sure this must be a fallacy as well. The " You weren't quick enough to show my argument fallacy so you lose, fallacy"

[@susiemilligan7220]

Practice! Take a debate class.

[@josephbelisle5792]

Beautiful. Well done. One of the best videos ive seen in a while.

[@matthewscott4629]

That was Awesome I need to listen like 15 times and take notes Thank you

[@dragonflythemusician]

Thank you for providing such a nice list and explanation. It inspired me to start to read in this field :)

[@andrewgjennings]

I've learned some of these by their Latin phrases. Circular resoning is sometimes called circulus in probando. And begging the question is called petitio principii. From my experience, law and philosophy discussions always seem to use Latin, other disciplines seem to prefer the English phrases. I don't know why.

[@andrewlutes2048]

Grateful for everyone bringing this subject up.

[@Swiby78]

It is a very nice summary but as you said it is very hard to project these concepts to real life. You went through so quickly that it makes it almost impossible to grab the essence of them if you have not a super strong logics background. Not sure about KZbin algorithm, but this video to be understood by people that are not familiar with the topic (vulgarisation) should be at least double as long. Anyway you give Inspiring content, so I’m gonna google most of the definitions and try to get a better understanding of them. Thanks a lot

[@DeadAbeVigoda]

I've attuned myself to listen for labels vs. arguments. "If you think X then you're a dummy" vs. "X is not not true because of this fact and this reasoning." Comes in handy when you're on social media. Or KZbin comments for that matter.

[@CasabaHowitzer]

It has to be said that "In fact, we should aspire to be as peaceful as possible" is itself a fallacious statement because it doesn't observe the fact-value distinction.

[@wydopnthrtl]

ditto. When he said that I thought...what?

[@learnpianobyear]

I’ve just discovered something about myself through your distinctive labelling of argumentation strategies. Thank you! I wishing you much success🎉

[@brianhay4024]

I love the pace of this video. It's great information without a lot of blah, blah, blah.....

[@alansmithee419]

I do get annoyed when people say others are using logical fallacies (even when they're right). Knowing about them is good, but when you see them just explain to the other person what is wrong with their argument. Naming the fallacy by going "you're using a [insert name here]" is a sure-fire way to get most people to stop listening to you. 1:00 Ad hominem specifically refers to arguing that a fault in a person's character means their argument is wrong. Insulting someone is not on its own an ad hominem. It needs to be used as an argument in order to qualify as a logical fallacy.

[@RalphBrooker-gn9iv]

I find the No True Scotsman ubiquitous and especially irritating. (I’m a mountain biker and find mountain bike litter on the trials. Then I hear ‘they’re not really mountain bikers’ defence! 🤯.) I’ve not heard it called the ‘No True Scotsman’ before.

[@hirisen]

I am probably going to send this video to everyone I know when arguments pop up. Thank you for this.

[@darylwood8509]

Wonderfully concise and best for those who have studied these logic concepts before, as a continuing reminder.

[@Dingbat-tb5wz]

With regard to no. 1, very often the problem IS the person you're arguing with; not on account of stupidity or ignorance but on account of dishonesty, and this is very common.

[@miketheman4341]

Some of these are misinterpreted or are highly debated depending on the context. Argument from Authority is a great example of this as it’s perfectly fine to accept credentials as a means to establish credibility. A medical doctor is not an expert in physics but a physics professor is especially if you are discussing an established paradigm. If it’s a highly debated topic within the field then it can become problematic to rely upon the opinion of one individual in the field but in most cases it’s perfectly acceptable to do so. Unfortunately all too many people have only read the headlines and not a more complex analysis of these rules.

[@HeatMyShorts]

I feel like I should rewatch this video a whole bunch of times so I can improve myself. Thank you for making this

[@Larkinchance]

I think that misinformation along with baseless allegations deserves a seat at the table.

[@r.z.j.8261]

Valuable information for my class in Critical Thinking Class. Thanks 🎉

[@stavrosk.2868]

I tried to argue several times with people who think the climate is 'doomed',and they ALL use these fallacies to discredit their opponent.

[@centozo]

I really liked this video. Short, sweet, and to the point. Subscribed! :)

[@TheChurchOfPhakeKnewz]

For me. Just me. I like the presentation. Short and simple. Instead of a lot of useless words. Now I can look look for more details were I need to. Instead of listening to details that I already know. Thanks. I subscribed.

[@vitabricksnailslime8273]

Well done, and I wish these distinctions were closer to the top of my mind when in debate. It would often be handy to make such observations in regards to the opponents claims. I really pulled up short at your, 'We should aspire to be as non-violent as possible" remark though. I think this is correct, but I can also see it as being a fun position to take on. And it's of little use when the Mongols come to town.

[@misterno-ice-guy8082]

Appeal to popularity is a dangerous logical fallicy, and I have made an enemy of it all my life. Guilt by association is my main weapon against it because it is a much less dangerous logical fallicy. For example: I know that just because everyone loves a certain tv show or movie, that doesn't mean that it is bad, but I'll still avoid it BECAUSE everyone loves it

[@runskicakesleep]

You've basically just explained every discussion on Twitter.

[@rabokarabekian409]

I agree that for oneself, this is essential knowledge. For interacting with others, do not expect to see much beyond full time use of every fallacy listed here. Analyze how much emotion drives rationalizations Rhetoric was long taught along with grammar and logic for good reasons..

[@cheflev9884]

My fave is the non sequitur. Simply put “it does not follow”

[@thomasp12384]

Always love to watch more on logical fallacies. It it beyond me why this stuff is not a main course in school, in my humble opinion it should be teached asap since it is your first line of defence against basicly any stupid claim.

[@bodiless99]

They prefer people not know HOW to think, only WHAT to think.

[@thomasp12384]

@@bodiless99 Hmm, I am not sure about that, but I a couple of politicians surely are not unhappy that people can't spot an ordinary fallacy. But I doubt it is really with malicious intend tbh, probably deemed to be to complex material for kids. It is teached in highschool, though briefly

[@bodiless99]

@@thomasp12384 it is "taught"... Not sure what school you went to, but no, I do not believe this is taught, at least not in the US.

[@thomasp12384]

@@bodiless99 Well, second language.. But I'll keep in in mind^^

[@TheMasterOfTheFrets]

I remember when I thought about the fallacy fallacy for the first time. It's a real mind-bender when you first think about it, because you'd think that fallacy equals contradiction, and contradiction equals false argument.

[@slin2678]

It's like getting the answer to a math problem correct but mess up the work leading to the solution.

[@StevieCooper]

Why do I learn so many valuable things at 11pm on a Saturday night.

[@harrypowell9050]

Logical fallacies of relevance and syllogistic logic are so important in trying to establish truth. Logic is the mathematics of language. Without logic we are left floundering. This takes me back to my university days and my profound belief in the purity of logic.

[@timdec5488]

Knowing and understanding these is a life changer. A whole new lens to see life through. It’s like a bs detector super power. Not easy to spot all the time though. Thanks for the video.

[@thebarefootyeti912]

Superb. Feel like I've just had a clean shave with Occam's razor.