A Crash Course in Formal Logic Pt 4a-b Fallacies of Relevance

[@marissacervantes3582]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@eulaloumoronabombales4501]

Done watching, Maam Joy Cerjulas. Thank you for this video, PhilHelper!.

[@hanicajanearabaca9371]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!👍

[@marylilmila8848]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thankyou for this video, Philhelper!

[@luisamariesanchez8734]

done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@honeylynsaculo1716]

Done watching, thank you for this video Ma'am Joy Cerujales, PhilHelper! 🙂

[@maryjanesanjose5197]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!🙂

[@kylamaebaynas5849]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper! :)

[@marianebethapa8802]

Done watching. Ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper.

[@jenniferbabila6956]

Done wathching Ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thanks for this video! PhilHelper!

[@jomararana1418]

Done watching Maam Joy P. Cerujales thankyou for this video, Philhelper!

[@lizahosana7511]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!😁

[@jisetteclairecordial9407]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@tambovlogs5406]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales , Thanks for this video, Philhelper.

[@chrizzamaeabuque2818]

Done watching,ma'am Joy Cerujales. Thanks for this video PhilHelper

[@beselceles1620]

"done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@marygracetagun520]

Done watching, Maam joy Cerjuales, Thankyou for this video. Philhelper !

[@sharonbarbastro5376]

Done watching,Mam Joy Cerujales.Thank u for this video,Philhelper.

[@jomararana1418]

Done watching maam Joy P. Cerujales thank you for this video, Philhelper!

[@drbirtles]

I disagree about the argumentum ad baculum example you provided regarding the teaching of creationism and flat earth teaching. Luckily you said "it seems like" rather than it "is". The principal point being raised was not to fearfully twist the opinion of the reader (as to qualify as baculum) but instead to demonstrate the hypocrisy of why one school of thought without empirical support can be taught and not another. "If" we can teach X without support & without sound justification "Then" we can also teach Y without support & without sound justification The term "expect" was being used in a rhetorical sense to describe a hypothetical situation whereby a faux revolution of knowledge occurs if we allow unsupported views to be taught in a classroom. Your videos have been great thus far, only that section negatively caught my eye.

[@dejureclaims8214]

I thought that was a bit funny, too...

[@PhilHelper]

Interesting analysis. The reason for my saying "it seems like" rather than it "is" was not that I thought the argument might be cogent. Rather, I thought it either committed ad baculum or some other fallacy. On your analysis, the argument (implicit) was modus tollens: If A, then B...~B...therefore ~A. Maybe, but without debating the merits of the premises, there is a difficulty with the analysis. The conclusion would have been "Therefore, we cannot teach intelligent design or creationism without support and without sound justification." Notice: intelligent design or creationist advocates would readily agree with this conclusion. Since the author of the "argument" above (assuming he was arguing at least implicitly) clearly aimed for an conclusion his opponents would not agree with, we should charitably assume that he had something other than this particular modus tollens form in mind. Despite this demerit (as I see it) of your analysis, at least your rendering of the argument is fallacy-free. Next question: can you find an analysis that is deductively valid, fallacy-free and avoids begging the question against opponents. That will be tough. I'm pretty sure the author of the original "argument," though, will not have thought through it as much as you have at this point...Perhaps that's the point to jettison the original and construct better arguments from ground up. Your thoughts?

[@timfoster5043]

@@PhilHelper - I thought it was a slippery slope fallacy. We could apply the same argument to any other debated discipline: - if we allow classes in chiropractics [debated], we'll have to allow classes in alchemy [disproved] - if we allow classes in global warming, we'll have to allow classes in astrology - if we allow classes in acupuncture, we'll have to allow classes in reflexology etc. But considering the painful alternatives presented, I can see how it might qualify as argumentum ad baculum. (and I did chuckle at the commenters who took umbrage to ID and Creationism being given a plug in a series of examples. If you give a troll a cookie...)

[@raduking]

David Birtles i was just about to point out that the word theory when it comes to evolution means a completely different thing than the one used in creation theory One is a proven scientific theory, the other one is just an idea in a book, second evolution does not deal with how life began it just explains the vast diversity of life so you cannot even compare the two so in my opinion it was an equivocation fallacy first...

[@buenaventejohnchristopherc1089]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhiHelper.

[@blesslydelovino7129]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thankyou for this video, Philhelper

[@honeylynfrancisco7478]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video,

[@valeriepajaron2849]

Done watching, ma'am joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, Phil Helper

[@carenbrondo3627]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales thank you for this video,, Philhelper

[@sheilamaepatlingrao5757]

Done watching maam joy cerujales. thank you for this video PhilHelper

[@RezaMoussavi]

I so much enjoy your crash course in logic (y)

[@Andrea-mn2sw]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper

[@LuisKing150]

Thanks again! helping me study for my midterm ! shouldnt have procrastinated on this but ahh oh well :[

[@NFLEAGLES11]

I feel your pain

[@Semiosphere]

I really love watching your crash course videos. They are clear and educational. I've taken a course in formal logic at university and these courses are a great way for me to recap what I learned - and learn the stuff I didn't learn on the course :) So good stuff all around. I haven't yet watched them all though. I do, however, have a question: could you consider doing a crash course in modal logic if modalities aren't already discussed in some episode of this crash course?

[@PhilHelper]

Working on quantified and modal logic videos right now. I'm a bit tied up with a nasty divorce battle, but when everything settles I'm back on it! Thanks for your input!

[@ramirezailyn7908]

Done watching@Ma'am Joy Cerujales 💝

[@noelogden1625]

I do love how evolutionists know that evolution is still just a theory and yet they also somehow "know" that creationists are wrong. How does that work? isn't that an incorrect inference? Other than that I enjoyed the video and I wish I had had these tools years ago.

[@ianbeddo4999]

What fallacy is this: You are the member of a large group. That group is having a meeting where only some of the members are invited. You think this is wrong and say it will make non-invited members feel excluded. Other say, "Our group membership is already exclusive, so why is it any different to have a meeting for only certain members?"

[@PhilHelper]

You are very welcome!

[@rckli]

21:38 Um actually, they would put red herring on the actual trail to…wait, this is a red herring isn’t it? What’s that ? I’m just writing this part so it’s obvious I was making a red herring about his explanation of the mindset one should have when thinking of red herrings in rhetoric? Who am I doing this for? Myself? I can’t stop up-talking? Oh shit, help?

[@dejureclaims8214]

I can't be sure if you meant to use the "left brain/right brain" concept literally, but it should be noted that it is really an urban myth. _Both_ hemispheres of the brain deal with what could be called logical and passionate functions.

[@brians7100]

This is not true. The left brain is focused primarily on the "known" while the right is focused primarily on the "unknown". Not a myth

Devil's advocate: (just thinking out loud) If character assassination is ad-hominem, then why do both sides in a court case present evidence as to a person's character? If the person's character can be used or taken into account to try and decide if a person did something or is guilty of something, then couldn't the same apply to trying to show someone is full of shit? If character is an important indicator as to what a person may DO, then why is it not an important indicator as to what a person may think or believe, or if the person would be out to deceive? I think character and integrity is important, especially when we have to defer to a specialist in an obscure field that we have neither the expertise nor the time to confirm or deny the claims thereof.... If a person has a history of lying, that's not ad-hominem to bring up, or to point out, BUT if you simply accuse a person as such WITH NO EVIDENCE as to your claim, then that is ad-hominem. Would you say that's correct, or can you help me refine it a bit? Thanks....

[@dejureclaims8214]

Ad hominem statements may be true or false. Ad hominem is recognised not as a _false_ statement that attacks someone's character, but as _any_ statement that does so in the context of a debate. Ad hominem statements are always unsound because a person's character or history do not necessarily reflect the quality of their argument. Someone may have a history of lying, but that does not necessarily mean they are lying now; we call it a "Fallacy of Composition" when someone asserts that what is true of something circumstantially must be true of it in its entirety. Always attack the argument, never the arguer.

***** Thanks for the input.

[@dejureclaims8214]

2eelShmeal Sorry it took so long :P

[@amandabatiz3335]

"I know that creationists are wrong", 17:26 statement---stick to the lesson please---I appreciate the lesson on the Strawman fallacy, and your illustration helps understand the fallacy, but we can do without your inserting of absolute truth statements. Thanks

[@SeanFisher]

You are right. He should have said "I know that Creationists have consistent logical fallacies in their arguments and have failed to meet burden of proof and have not demonstrated a mechanism or a method for determining any of their claims, otherwise it would part of a scientific consensus since it's proven itself falsifiable".

[@googlespynetwork]

Chemistry literally came from Alchemy. And they are basically the same. Although chemistry has become more "clinical" but the Alchemists basically traded their robes for white 🥼 lab coats. But they are basically the same. 😂 Some people are just ignorant of the actual history of science. Chemistry wouldn't even exist without Alchemy, which is the father if modern science.

[@Tonystoys721]

I appreciate your content, but from what I have read the amygdala more than the right side of the brain deals with fear. Furthermore, intuition actually comes more from the enteric system, i.e. the gut brain which is lined with even more neurons than your heart.

[@mothman84]

Four examples of appeal to force none of which is an appeal to force. The first is a joke, maybe a metaphor, the second is an exaggerated opinion based on verifiable fact, the third is a simple set of analogies, and the forth is use of force, which doesn't appeal to anything at all.

[@PhilHelper]

+mothman84 Strictly you are right...no one threatens to beat someone else up. But all the examples are examples of fallacies, except the 4th...which I should probably have offered as just a funny illustration of what force can or can't establish :-). The reason that the remaining examples are bad arguments is that (note the definition of the fallacy) an inference is motivated by worry of harm rather than reason. The definition of the fallacy given is broad enough to cover them. Thanks.

[@mothman84]

PhilHelper No big deal. Thank _you_ for taking the time to answer my comment. I love your videos. Any issue I might have with them is secondary to the fact that I learn a lot from your work, which is both instructive and entertaining.

[@PhilHelper]

Thanks for the awesome compliments. As soon as I get my audio and computer working right, they will come fast.

[@marclawson6144]

Alternative theories of human origins? That is a fallacious claim. There are currently no alternative theories of human origin. My deductive logic for you: Once a theory has been disproven by science, it is no longer a theory but merely a fallacious claim. The theory of evolution is the only explanation of human origins not disproven by science. Thus there are no alternative "theories".

[@brians7100]

"Once a theory has been disproven by science, it is no longer a theory but merely a fallacious claim" But what if a subsequent scientific theory invalidates our present theory and validates the original claim?

[@heathkitchen2612]

In regards to the "intelligent design" debate part, I say the premise is true (letting this non scientific bullshit into science classrooms does produces demonstrable harm). The argument as you have put it is fallacious but, thank goodness, that "straw man" that you presented is never how this argument is presented. Please, I like your videos, stop peppering them with your religious nonsense. How about you show the unsoundness and invalidity of one of these ridiculous god argument: Kalam, first cause, TAG, and your idiotic intelligent design; which has absolutely no scientific reason to be debated in the first place. Come up with a god damn theory and then you can debate it. Seriously, why don't you go after these highly fallacious arguments? I hope you are just mistaken and not actually teaching logic while also defending despicably dishonest arguments like the ones supporting intelligent design. I like the "A few good men" joke in the last video though. Keep to jokes and logic, loose the preaching.

[@tonpo27]

+Heath Kitchen It is intended, not to make you butt-hurt, but to think as the construct of a higher power is normally hotly contended. This is one of the better courses on logic I have found thus far and would appreciate your ad hominem abusive, ie take your own advice about preaching, to stop so that I can more help, regardless of the authors belief style.

[@tyjones7211]

Funny this is about fallacies and straw man tactics then commits a straw man tactic against creationist by just asserting it's wrong and the fallacy of evolution is of course right.

[@angelanabor3651]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@angelinerobles4249]

Done watching, Mam Joy P. Cerujales. Thank you for this video PhilHelper!.

[@marylilmila8848]

Done watching Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thankyou for this video, Philhelper!

[@aprilrosealmazar450]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@beselceles1620]

"done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@marygracetagun520]

Done watching, Maam joy Cerjuales, Thankyou for this video. Philhelper !

[@angelanabor3651]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@tambovlogs5406]

Ahahaha

[@analaraavengoza1816]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

[@rosalynpadayao5488]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

[@sherlynnasi3798]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@avilaabegail661]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@maydelenaquino705]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@maryfranceyulo6049]

done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@rosalynpadayao5488]

Done watching ma'am Joy Cerujales, Thank you for this video PhilHelper!

[@sherlynnasi3798]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@dynaaprilfrias3338]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!"

[@benefecasseybriones6495]

Done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thanks for this video PhilHelper!

[@genevaroslin3913]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@genevaroslin3913]

Done watching, Ma'am Joy Cerujales thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@rannaaanana]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!

[@Josecorbito31]

done watching, Mam Joy Cerujales, thank you for this video, PhilHelper!