Burden of Proof - Learn how to avoid this logical fallacy

[@gemini_537]

Gemini 1.5 Pro: This video is about logical fallacies and critical thinking skills. Specifically, it focuses on two logical fallacies: jumping to conclusions and shifting the burden of proof. The video uses the cartoon Futurama as an example to illustrate jumping to conclusions. In the episode, Bender accuses Senator Travis of being an alien because of his strange middle name. Bender doesn't have any evidence to support his claim, but he demands that Senator Travis prove he is from Earth. This is shifting the burden of proof. The video explains that critical thinking requires us to be comfortable with uncertainty and to consider all the possibilities before reaching a conclusion. We should also examine the available evidence and identify the assumptions we are making. The video uses the pyramids as an example. If someone claims that aliens built the pyramids because we can't fully explain how they were built, they are jumping to conclusions. A more critical approach would be to consider other possibilities, such as the Egyptians built them themselves using methods we haven't discovered yet. We should also examine the evidence we do have, such as the ramps and pulleys archaeologists have found. The video concludes with four steps to take to avoid jumping to conclusions and shifting the burden of proof: 1. Be okay with uncertainty. 2. Consider other possibilities. 3. Examine the available evidence. 4. List the assumptions needed for an explanation to be true.

[@jesonlozil]

600 views and 60 likes makes me sad about where our world is heading. It doesn't represent the quality of your work, you are amazing.

[@thesciencelens]

Thanks, mate! I appreciate the support. There are probably things I could be doing to promote the channel more, but for the time being I'm happy to let it grow slowly. But make sure to give it a share if you know someone that would enjoy it!

[@petercello]

Nice one, Mr Scholtes. So well put and laid out, thanks for making these!

[@thesciencelens]

Thanks, mate! I'm having a lot of fun with it.

[@womp6338]

burden of proof has nothing to do with logical fallacy. just because you might have burden of proof in scientific context, does not mean you are incorrect.

[@thesciencelens]

It doesn't mean you're incorrect, but you shouldn't expect others to agree with you without evidence.

[@womp6338]

@@thesciencelens yeah but it’s also lazy to just dismiss everything without care because modern science only studies things that will give profit. So it’s very skewed in one direction. But if people question it just based on logic and assertions it gets dismissed. That’s why modern science is so stagnant.

[@chomnansaedan4788]

Just watched the Andrew Wilson vs Destiny debate on J6. Turns out Destiny was in a large logical fallacy the entire debate.

[@SneakySteevy]

One could claim that something is not real simply because no one has proven its existence. Thats the burden of proof.

[@thesciencelens]

It's true that a lack of evidence doesn't disprove something's existence, and people are free to believe whatever they want. But in an argument you can't expect another person to accept that something exists unless you have evidence.

[@SneakySteevy]

Why almost all logical fallacies focus only on the fallacies of the Republican?

[@thesciencelens]

I try to be politically neutral when choosing my examples. Is there an example of a fallacy that you see from the other side of the fence that you think I should address?