Matt Fradd explains the logic fallacy "self-referential incoherence"

[@HaroldCrews]

It is self referentially incoherent to condemn others for being 'judgmental'.

[@conradsmith9441]

Yes. Judging others for being judgmental is exactly that.

[@xybersurfer]

no. making making a judgement is not the same as being a judgmental person

[@kaylableedinghollow492]

I totally agree with these arguments, the only thing that's left out is the idea of accepting reason as an undeniable grounds for all truth, but still asserting you're a skeptic. There are tons of arguments brought up by philosophers in response to the fallacy you bring up here. One of which is accepting reason, as I said, as the only undeniable truth because reason in itself is un-questionable. you cannot prove reason with reason, but you can prove reason indirectly. It was Hume who was talking about this if you're interested on reading up on it (I'm sure he explains it better than me) =P how would one respond to this? I know Reid talks about this, but I don't think his arguments are exactly sound because he doesn't differentiate between output versus input. meaning that perception cannot be a fundamental because it relies on output information, whereas reason more-so relies on input. They both interact with each other (output versus input) but they both have different grounds.

[@mirandusings]

The elevator music in the background was pretty distracting. Maybe next time you could make it a bit quieter, perhaps?

[@ABSSBABSA]

same thoughts. please stop the background music.

[@nicksibly526]

Terrible music, excellent logic

[@mgk9213]

Wouldn't you say that Bertrand Russell's type theory refutes your objection in this case?

[@DaveE99]

What I don’t ever hear people explain, is if science isn’t the main thing you trust, what system of evaluation do we trust. That’s never truly explained to me in any coherent way. And the thing about the scientific method is it often advances and grows better and even more precise in many ways. Like a crawling web, it started off small where this argument makes more sense but over time it’s gone into more areas with more diverse subjects. And so the idea that we shouldn’t just trust science ignores also the almost logarithmic growth in science yet I’m not side you could say that about other systems. And so if you think about it less in an either or and think about it in more a “what % can each system explain” which to some degree is a subjective idea, though I assume often our judgments of that remain somewhat consistent based on the object doing the judgment.

[@DaveE99]

I find the issue with truth to some degree is you have to litterally be willing to overwhelm yourself and motivate yourself through hopeless optimism consistently through many dark of the night periods to find it.

[@stevemcqueen3349]

Well, he is right about the instance of the guy who said he is sure that there is no truth. However,if that person said something like, "there does not appear to be objective truth", that would not be fallacious.

[@DaveE99]

One thing I found interesting looking at ecological theories of decision making, it’s that some bias we have mainly evolved to function in specific contexts and not others.

[@RODERICKMOLASAR]

Everything I say is a lie. Furthermore, I am absolutely intolerant of intolerance. Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk.

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Hi. Thanks Matt. Is self-referential incoherence also called ad infinitum and the question: "how do we know what we know" (if you're catholic or christian, we know that knowledge comes from God alone and we're but instruments)? Thank you. God bless, Rev. 21:4

[@pintswithaquinas]

SevenDeMagnus No, that's different. Ad infinitum essentially means, and on and on forever without a beginning. This can lead to problems when we think of an infinite regress of causes, say. If causes go back ad infinitum, then there was no first cause . . . so why are there subsequent causes? Self-referential incoherence just means that a proposition or argument refutes itself.

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Matt Fradd Thanks Matt. Thanks for the great surprise (answering). Been battling atheists for some years now, I can use these philosophical technical terms. You're on your way to sainthood. God bless. Rev. 21:4

[@SevenDeMagnus]

SevenDeMagnus By the way, since you're british, if you debate Dawkins (who's debated a cardinal) and somehow sat there in the UK with him and converse and he asks: how would you explain that God is sacramentally present in the host? If he asks what exactly does sacramentally mean? Is God physically present or spiritual present or both of these realities are present in the host? Thanks.

[@DAPTXDC4869]

So basically it's a self-refuting paradox of statement.

[@GregAitchison]

This looks awesome! Gonna use this clip in my 8th grade Religion class. Thanks, Matt!

[@kapil8060]

Are you planning to come down to Australia anytime soon?

[@daniel987878]

Does this mean you cant reference the bible to prove Christianity?

[@nicksibly526]

Thanks Matt

[@JoeGrimer]

Brilliant... Love long words too!

[@neuronneuron3645]

If the words are too long use a dictionary

[@xybersurfer]

some atheists might make these mistakes. however, existing religions are typically full of "self-referential incoherence" by definition

[@conradsmith9441]

Truth is we all do it. It doesn't matter if you are religious, atheist, or even delving into stuff not related to religion. We all do it.

[@xybersurfer]

​@@conradsmith9441 i will grant you that we all make these mistakes in normal speech, where everyone knows how to interpret what someone is actually saying. but this is typically not the case with the defining texts of religion, where there are things that are even incoherent to the practitioners themselves, as is shown by them not having an interpretation or completely different interpretations. so i think it's intellectually dishonest to compare the 2

[@robertlehnert4148]

Greg Koukal calls this the "Dead on Arrival" or DOA Fallacy.

[@elcanaldeshackra]

One more thing to buy, thought!

[@TickleMeElmo55]

How so?

[@zboys4586]

Ever hear of the M theory? the four M's ? Mystery Magic Matrix and Membrain

[@ThomistC]

It's Membrane, not Membrain.

[@edthoreum7625]

m theory is about physics?

[@AlhunAydin]

Well, you can use your "self-referential incoherence" to any statement involving absolute judgement. Then, you are actually implying the absence of absolute truth. How about that Mr. Self-Confidence?

[@conradsmith9441]

You know, "I think you are not wise because you go around telling people how wise you are" 🤣

[@joop5415]

Some of this is a little bit bullshit possibly ?

[@rockstarjones164]

While examining the universe made by God I concluded that God does not exist

[@rogeralbertson8800]

The so-called relativist you exposed is not a relativist. A relativist would not say their belief iis absolutely true. They would say their belief is relatively true. A higher evolved relativist would recognize that there are not even relative truths. To defend an absolute ethical truth, one needs to make an assumption. There is no objective standard to measure that assumption. All mides of measurement are within reality and cannot objectively measure reality. Even a hardcore scientist would not claim an absolute truth.

[@nicksibly526]

Is that a truth statement?

[@zboys4586]

My hampster just yawned

[@markryan3018]

Notice he can't actually GIVE those supposed "good argumenats"...

[@markryan3018]

This is a very self-referential video..and argument.