"Informal Fallacies, Part 1" by Leonard Peikoff

[@YashArya01]

0:00 Motivation/Purpose 4:14 1. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) 8:20 1.a. Quantitative version: Appeal to Popularity 10:17 Popularity doesn't even make it more likely 13:12 E.g. Emperor's New Clothes 15:20 1.b. Qualitative version: Appeal to False Authority 19:00 How to rationally vet an expert 26:20 How to rationally vet a witness 32:50 1.c. Appeal to Jargon (can at least be avoided in non STEM & Medicine). 35:45 1.d. Appeal to Charisma 37:00 2. Ad Baculum: Appeal to Physical Force 42:25 3. Ad Hominem - Abusive: Attack a person's character instead of their argument; Another variant is to simply say "an argument is wrong because it's so old." 51:35 It's okay to attack a person's character, if you can prove it, but NOT as a substitute to answering their argument. Note: A person's character doesn't have any bearing on their "argument" but it IS a relevant factor to keep in mind in their "testimony" as a witness. That is not ad Hominem. 55:30 4. Ad Hominem - Circumstantial: Not a direct attack on the person, but of the form "someone personally cannot believe their idea, because it would contradict another one of their other ideas. Therefore their idea is false." It's true that if two ideas contradict, one (or both) must be false. But that per se does not determine whether the old or the new idea is false. 1:01:30 5. Appeal to Personal Emotions. (The ones so far were also indirect appeals to emotions, but this is more blatant). Mystics & Subjectivists adopt this as a systematic policy. Mystics: Emotions reveal facts. Subjectivists: Emotions create facts. 1:06:35 6. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the Other People's Emotions): Advertisers and rhetoricians to convince people of something on the basis of emotive language. Note: Emotion may *accompany* logic, but it may not *replace* logic. Being logical doesn't mean you have to be emotionless. 1:17:15 7. Appeal to Pity: Subtype of ad Populum but prevalent enough to be called out separately. (The altruist ethics adopts this as a systematic policy) Classic example: Mark Anthony's speech at Ceaser's funeral. The question was, was Caesar trying to become a dictator? Mark's speech was about how much Caesar suffered. 1:22:19 8. Argumentum ad Ignorantiama (Appeal to Ignorance) 1:32:30 The Onus of Proof / The Burden of Proof is on the person asserting the positive claim. ("how do you know you're not dreaming?"; The burden of proof is on them to prove that you *are* dreaming.) 1:36:12 The agnostic mentality: You can't disprove it, I can't prove it, the only rational position is to believe is that it's possible. 1:44:12: 9. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question): Assuming what you're trying to prove as part of your proof. 1:48:05 9.a. via Restating in different words 1:50:48 9.b via Arbitrary Redefinition 1:55:02 9.c via Circular Reasoning 1:57:35 9.d via Question Begging Epithet 2:00:35 10. Complex / Leading / Loaded question: A question that implies a certain answer to another question. E.g: When did you stop beating your wife? (Assumes that they did, in fact, do so.) Clubbing two questions as if they both need to have the same answer. E.g. Are you a progressive and a socialist? Assumes there is an answer. E.g: Where did the universe come from? 2:08:20 Homework assigned for this week. Q) Since man's mind is fallible, how can he be sure of anything? 2:10:30 Contradiction vs Paradox 2:11:03 "If not for God, where did the universe come from?" - Loaded question fallacy 2:15:03 Maria Montessori reveals herself as a mystic, how do you account for such a logically derived method of education? 2:16:30 What difference does an objective reality make if I cannot know it? 2:19:20 Is subjectivism an example of the stolen concept fallacy? 2:21:05 How do I know I didn't make an error in my logical reasoning? 2:22:45 Difference between Metaphysical and Ontological (for practical purposes, used synonymously in this course) 2:23:20 Is it ever appropriate to use a logical fallacy? 2:25:08 Difference between a fact and an opinion 2:25:53 Difference between proof and validation. 2:28:00 If people were mostly logical, would an appeal to popularity then be valid? 2:30:20 Clarification on the definition of Logic as the Art of Non-Contradictory Identification. (In essence, art is used here to mean a skill/technique). 2:31:50 Is double negation a fallacy? 2:34:08 Do you make a distinction between a positive that you can prove and a negative that you cannot prove? (Further discussion on the Burden of Proof). 2:39:17 Since a completely arbitrary statement may turn out to be true, can you say that its false?

[@RashadSaleh92]

Thanks 🙏

[@YashArya01]

0:10: Introduction to fallacies 0:32: Informal fallacies 0:59: History of fallacies 1:12: Purpose of studying fallacies 3:43: Classification of fallacies 4:56: Argumentum ad verecundiam 6:13: Structure of the fallacy 10:24: Quantitative version of the fallacy 15:46: Qualitative version of the fallacy 27:08: Proper policy in regard to witnesses 39:38: Examples of reliable and unreliable witnesses 42:26: Argumentum ad hominem (abusive) 54:09: Unreliable witness 55:24: Argumentum ad hominem circumstantial 57:52: Contradiction does not prove falsehood 1:02:08: Appeal to one's own emotion 1:06:28: Appeal to other people's emotions 1:10:40: Use of emotive language 1:21:40: Appeal to pity 1:22:13: Argumentum ad misericordia 1:24:16: Argumentum ad ignorantiam 1:33:29: Onus of proof 1:37:43: Possibility fallacy 1:54:17: Begging the Question 1:54:51: Arbitrary Definition 1:55:13: Circular Reasoning 1:57:43: Question Begging Epithet 2:01:29: Complex Question 2:15:20: Believing in the Existence of God doesn't necessarily imply Mysticism and disbelief doesn't necessarily imply one is rational 2:16:01: Contradictions in beliefs 2:16:36: Importance of senses 2:19:22: Subjectivism and stolen concept fallacy 2:22:51: Difference between metaphysical and ontological 2:23:16: Using fallacies in questioning 2:25:09: Difference between fact and opinion 2:25:54: Difference between proof and validation 2:27:06: Appeal to emotion fallacy 2:27:34: Determinism and appeal to pity 2:28:06: Logic and majority belief Generated using Summatim

[@baihbangura1593]

Educative Viewing from Sierra Leone

[@Richard-1776]

I love Leonard Peikoff. Ayn Rand chose well.

[@truthseeker3397]

Thanks!

[@trinp.6334]

marvelous...

[@YashArya01]

2:08:20 Homework assigned for this week.

[@Kelkhatan]

Where do I get the homework book from? Thx for the answer.

[@hermesmercuriustrismegistu4841]

Great content!

[@raystargazer7468]

This one was hilarious xD.

[@adeelali8417]

2:10:00 Q&A

[@mustafarasool887]

17:05

[@qasim6540]

42:25

[@qasim6540]

1:17:05

[@qasim6540]

2:08:59

[@sharirtzur6186]

Argumentum ad Ignorantiama -- so because people who believe in God can't prove it, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

Perhaps they could be called "material fallacies"

[@noelfalls1240]

28:40 Dr fauci.....

[@nelson6702]

I've hear of Trump?

[@wiesenkerbel8084]

Galileo never said that sentence "but still it does move". This was made up. This wasn't the topic with the church anyway. The trial was about disobedience. It had nothing to do with the content of his studies.

[@jrb4935]

But he still said it.

[@coimbralaw]

Keep your garbage contrarianism (penultimately ill-informed as it is) to your inconsequential self.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

@@jrb4935 lol