Stop Misusing Logical Fallacies

[@enzoqueijao]

Instead of saying "that's a strawman" or "that's an argument ad hominem", I prefer to just say "that's not what I said" or "that doesn't matter". It's more direct and saves you from a discussion about logical fallacies.

[@scptime1188]

Yeah. Fallacy dropping all the time makes you look like you prefer style over substance when it comes to debates.

[@NinjaMonkeyPrime]

Well that's because you're probably honestly trying to have a discussion and make a point. The problem is with things like FE and EU it's not about truth.

[@moldycarrot9267]

Sure, I feel like fallacy dropping is more a tactic to portray yourself as more attacked than you might be, or the opponent more dishonest than he might be. Saying "that's a strawman" Is more defensive/offensive than saying "you're misinterpreting my argument". Fallacy dropping can be good if the fallacy is a bit more in-depth though.

[@scptime1188]

@@moldycarrot9267 Yeah you have to actually explain yourslef instead of just shouting names of fallacies.

[@moldycarrot9267]

@@scptime1188 It's interesting how this is an (has become) argumentation tactic. I kinda like the name, fallacy dropping. Fallacies as a concept is very useful though. It's a handy shortcut for yourself to think about, but rarely in a discussion. Also- look up the "fallacy fallacy"

[@trevorx7872]

Things I learned: Steve has brown hair Steve is unemployed. Steve is Bulgarian. Steve got a DUI in 2005.

[@wolffang21burgers]

He's probably wrong, friendless and knows nothing about America. Why should I listen to him?

[@Dreadnaut2560]

@@wolffang21burgers 10/10 best comment thread of this video

[@rgby1367]

@@Dreadnaut2560 agreed

[@someaipretendingtobehuman3157]

Poor Steve he can't find job cause no one joining his survival world.

[@theeyeiswatching8036]

:)

[@AIenSmithee]

Some people just want to say big words because they think it makes them sound photosynthesis.

[@Tippex_Official]

Think I’ve seen this one before

[@thinginground5179]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, because photosynthesis is the pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis method of talking like a true academic.

[@AIenSmithee]

@@thinginground5179 You said academic, that's an argument from authority. also said "true academic", No true scotsman fallacy. Don't try to strawman your Red herring out of this one.

[@thinginground5179]

@@AIenSmithee eheheheh

[@rudra62]

Oh, I had an English teacher say one time that if you don't understand something in the science class, give the answer "by osmosis". She said you might get partial credit anyway if a science teacher thought you understood osmosis, even if it was the wrong answer. :D

[@alxjones]

Take it easy on Steve, man. He's been having a rough time.

[@jammy_pingu4434]

Ye being from Bulgaria can be hard

[@juanverney]

I can be hard to get a job with a DUI

[@Liggliluff]

Steve, more like Стив

[@cy-bernet-ix]

steve is an unemployed, friendless drunk driver

[@blenderbanana]

He might get a cool internship.

[@fencserx9423]

Ironically there is an actual logical fallacy called the fallacy fallacy, where you assume an argument must be false because it contains a fallacy

[@gabrielnewcomer2866]

I've seen a few people give such a definition for this fallacy. It's a bit more nuanced, however. An argument is indeed fallacious if it contains a fallacy, but the conclusion of the argument is what's in question. The fallacy fallacy is when a person assumes that a conclusion is false just because the reasoning for said conclusion is fallacious. E.G. "I know that you took my lunch. I know because you are the one who took it last week." Just because "you" took the lunch last week doesn't mean that it must have been "you" this week. But on the other hand, this fallacy does not necessarily mean that he/she did NOT take the lunch. Just to reiterate, the argument is fallacious, but the conclusion's modality is yet unknown.

[@fencserx9423]

Gabriel Newcomer I agree. You said it better than I did.

[@sterloin]

Gabriel Newcomer Exactly, a fallacious argument Cannot be used to prove the conclusion of the argument. But it doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong, it just means that the argument used can logically not lead to the conclusion.

[@Nugcon]

We're diving top deep into the fallacies!

[@liquidbraino]

@@sterloin But on the other hand an argument which is made without any supporting evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence or argument. For example the bible says donkeys can talk; there's no evidence that donkeys can talk, therefore I don't even NEED to argue about why it is that donkeys can't talk because I'm not the one making the claim that they can, I'm the one doubting the claim and the burden of proof is on those who make claims without evidence, not those who doubt the claim. The more contradictions; logical fallacies and claims made without evidence by any single individual (or book) the higher the statistical probability that EVERYTHING they're telling you is a lie. The bible contains over 600 contradictions and scientific absurdities and also there are many different versions of this one book that can't seem to agree with itself in any of it's versions. If there was even one single contradiction or scientific absurdity in the bible - that one contradiction would bring all other statements into question but there isn't just one contradiction, there are hundreds which brings the statistical probability if the entire book being crap pretty close to 100%. Combine that with the fact that there are so many different versions of the bible and it becomes obvious that the entire book is a lie because only a lie would have more than one version.

[@hypers829]

This video put me in a real prisoner's dilemma

[@brianlam5847]

This statement is an ad hominin attack on my strawman

[@kencur9690]

We’re on a slippery slope. Wait, we kind of are...

[@kit2691]

@@kencur9690 that's a hasty generalization since I have yet to slip on your slope

[@kencur9690]

@@kit2691 You will slip... oh, you will slip...

[@pedrosso0]

what do you mean? where's the prisoners dilemma?

[@Xambonii]

“Science is just things we know. There is no central authority figure.” I actually really like this quote. Edit: yes I understand that science is better described as a method, not a set of facts, but I am sure that we can all agree that those two definitions are much closer to the truth than it being a central authority figure.

[@raconvid6521]

Science is the perfect community.

[@piguy222]

"It aint easy bein' cheesy." - Cheese Cat, 6/9/420 BC I live by this great quote

[@Poochamoo]

I respect the spirit of the statement, but I question its vernacular. Science is a method, not a body of knowledge. I fear the confidence that it "works", because it's not about "working", it's about being better than before. That process is important. It should ideally continue to refine that margin. Whether it's saving lives, time, or input. It's true, we should rely on science as mostly reliable, it has given rise to substantive solutions, but we should not become complacent in it's conclusions. History, which we're currently setting, is full of cases like Ignaz Semmelweis or Stubbins Ffirth. We are likely wrong about many things we think we "know", and that's okay, because science isn't primarily knowledge, it's the method of discovery.

[@DylanMoss]

@@raconvid6521 you're not part of the science community if you think it's perfect. It's just as full of corruption, ego and ambition as any other.

[@piguy222]

@S W Bill Gates is the first Fabricator-General of the Adeptus Mechanicus and that's a fact

[@Maladjester]

I always liked the "I must be right because nobody refuted me" argument, as if every time their soup-cooler springs open for some ridiculous statement, a team of scientists is obligated to be standing by to argue back. If a moron says "evolution isn't real" in a forest and no one is there to hear it, they're still wrong.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"I must be right because nobody refuted me" This is effective with ordinary humans. Failing to challenge a wrong statement will likely be taken as your agreement with the wrong statement.

[@mykehog6646]

Yes..reality..that which exists regardless of belief or cognizance

[@richardhill2643]

@@mykehog6646 hence the need to keep on presenting arguments against flat earth, against creation, against global warming denialists, against Covid denialists, against all of these things that argue against firmly established science. Do we not argue and let antiscience and blatantly wrong ideas permeate society? That would be a big backwards step in the progress of our society.

[@-caesarian-6078]

And let's not forget the more conspiratorial ones, who will claim that their supposed conspiracy enemies exist BECAUSE people refute their arguments, as (according to them) the only reason why someone would attempt to discredit them is because they are right and the conspiracy needs to embarrass them.

[@Lucciii32]

@@richardhill2643is your IQ truly this low? Why don’t you pray about these problems to your imaginary friend ?

[@stephenandrusyszyn3444]

Please stop saying these bad things about me. I've never gotten a DUI, my ancestry is Ukrainian, not Bulgarian, and I have a job. I do have brown hair, so you got me on that one, but what do I know, I have brown hair. :P

[@dopaminecloud]

this whole comment is a lie because your name is stephen

[@Nae_Ayy]

@@dopaminecloud Steve can be short for Stephen. I'm sorry I can't tell if you're joking.

[@nathangamble125]

How do you know? You have brown hair, so you're stupid, so you probably are an unemployed Bulgarian with a DUI, but you just forgot about it. ... ... ... (this is an obvious joke, but some people on youtube seem to miss obvious jokes, so here is the obligatory "this is a joke" disclaimer)

[@ferociousfeind8538]

shut up, brown-hair-haver, we don't want y'all in our very sophisticated blond-hair comment sections. Hecker.

[@griffincrump5077]

Ferociousfeind the brown hairs will rise up you ignorant blond headed bastard!

[@raptorjesus6120]

The one fallacy flat earthers use the most is the fallacy fallacy: Thinking an argument is automatically debunked by calling a fallacy.

[@vari1535]

Loll

[@Hi_Brien]

Fallacious ad fallacium

[@RanEncounter]

@Commentator That is not true. You can practice Islam without believing everything in the Quran. There is not one Islam as there is not just one Cristianity or Budhism.

[@Hi_Brien]

@Commentator but I know several followers of Islam, and none of them believe in a flat earth. The thing is, they are usually quite well educated.

[@Somerandomdude-ev2uh]

@Commentator all religions are filled with scientific inaccuracies. Shock! Horror!

[@misturfixit45]

My pet peeve is misuse of 'slippery slope'. We all know that things cause other things, but miraculously the laws of causality seem to break down when Gary is losing an argument. "Hey Gary, if you keep slapping that grizzly bear, he's liable to maul you" "You ignorant fool, that's a slippery slo-"

[@epicblue00]

A slippery slope is a slope covered in soap

[@hunteralderman4867]

And generally, the people who will call the slippery slope a fallacy will use the slippery slope to condemn some viewpoint they consider 'right wing'

[@clickpause8732]

@@hunteralderman4867 I could be wrong here, but I’ve definitely found it to be equally distributed across the left and right. Like, pro-gun rights (a general right wing stance) is often defended by the slippery slope argument, with “if they block such and such from getting guns or block retail of such and such firearms, that’s a slippery slope to removing our gun rights in their entirety”. It’s fair to point out the flaws in the stance of people you disagree with, be it left or right wing, but I’d recommend not casting stones if you haven’t check whether or not your “side” has the same problem. Edit: I do say “side” sparingly, because left and right wing is far from a pair of monolithic standpoints, and they come in degrees.

[@liquidsnake6879]

I mean all the slippery slope fallacy says is that just because you say something is gonna happen doesn't mean it will which is true, it's misused when people use it to dismiss other people's arguments without giving them thought.

[@liquidsnake6879]

@@clickpause8732 I'd argue the pro-gun slippery slope argument is rather valid however, in that it's a reasonable concern that people should have and many arguments have been put forth for a long time for just banning firearms altogether, and of course you have examples of many other nations where this was done historically many of which anti-gunners cite as examples, so, it's a reasonable slippery slope to fear and since gun control has been introduced to the USA during Jim Crow it's already been expanded a few times which gives credit to the idea that the goal posts can be moved over time. The issue with slippery slope arguments is not so much when people make them it's when other people use them to dismiss and discredit their concerns without giving them any consideration. Understand ofc on the other end that it's true that just because you say something is gonna happen doesn't mean it will, but what's the data that supports that it might? how high is the chance that it will? and is it a valid concern that we should take into consideration? Etc

[@SvintMvrcus]

“They’re just parroting a phrase they heard like a toddler mimicking his parents” damn.. you just described half of America the last couple years

[@brandenboggess6672]

Lots of that going on with Gen Z sadly...

[@uuddlrlrabsmhm8430]

@@brandenboggess6672 Gen-Z is basically bad jokes and drugs... wait...

[@uuddlrlrabsmhm8430]

Gen-Z is: - Kids knowing how to be smart - Not knowing how to shut up about the obvious They're like the Millenials but worse, at least Millenials know when the word "Shut" and "Up" collide.

[@Liggliluff]

Isn't the biggest issues the "boomers" who refuse progress, believe in non-science like religion, flat earth and anti-vaccination?

[@alexanderjarvis3333]

@@Liggliluff No, the real problem is democrats, it doesn't matter what uour age is, if you're a Democrat you're evilm

[@jseden]

Ive noticed that flat earthers often latch onto a couple "big" words and use them to death, usually incorrectly.

[@ferociousfeind8538]

Then they turn around and accuse actual professionals using big words properly and when they need to be used (see specifically the Hovind v. King Crocoduck debate) of using big words just to make them sound dumber. It's amazing how satisfying it is to get to say "cognitive dissonance" and actually be right about it, every single time, (when talking about Hovind, at least).

[@jseden]

Ferociousfeind indeed. The projection is also usually very strong with these idiots. The knowledgeable person in the "debate" will often give a detailed explanation of the concept in question and in turn, the opponent, who clearly tuned out after a sentence or two will respond by accusing them preaching rhetoric or ad homing. The major issue is that they don't know how to think. Ironically, they take the concept of a "proper way of thinking" as brainwashing. When in reality, it means thinking critically or following a logical path. However the concept is often so forgien to them because they tend to conflate logic with what feels correct given their absence of knowledge on the subject. They often haven't the slightest clue of how little they don't know and arrogantly choose to remain as ignorant as they are. Dunning Kruger personified... Started rambling a bit there.. the wilful ingorance of conspiracy theorists is a subject I find fascinating.

[@liquidbraino]

I like to use big words that I don't understand because it makes me seem more photosynthesis.

[@ferociousfeind8538]

@@liquidbraino "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

[@pattonpending7390]

Oakley is my favorite for that stuff: remember when he kept saying the things appear to go over the horizon due to the "angle of attack"? Of course, the angle of attack is used in flying to denote the angle between the chord of a wing and the relative airflow over it (too large an angle and the wing will stall), but that didn't stop that knucklehead for using the phrase for weeks when trying to tell others that they were wrong.

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

I call it "meta-fallacy": fallaciously accusing another of committing a fallacy.

[@ladyofthemoonflower]

It’s actually called the fallacy fallacy. I like “fallacy squared” myself

[@fivedfiva]

@@ladyofthemoonflower ...falla-ception..

[@niccster1061]

@@ladyofthemoonflower this description of the fallacy fallacy is a little too broad in my opinion. Rather than just "fallacious accusing another of committing a fallacy" its more accurate to say that its assuming someones claim is incorrect because they used a fallacy

[@parafuegosarchive]

@@ladyofthemoonflower im a personal fan of fallacy to the Tesseract

[@imengaginginclown-to-clown9363]

@@ladyofthemoonflower For you to incorrectly use a common fallacy, it is not necessary to commit the fallacy fallacy yourself. For example if someone just said "you're dumb" and you incorrectly say that this is an ad hominem; but then do not conclude anything new relating to the topic being discussed from this, then you haven't committed the fallacy fallacy. You've just used the word "ad hominem" wrong. Misunderstanding a word is not a logical fallacy because it doesn't pertain to logic itself.

[@ajhieb]

And not to nit pick, but you're _almost_ right about cognitive dissonance. It is the _result of_ holding contradictory beliefs, but it isn't _just_ that. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort one feels _because_ they hold contradictory beliefs. That's why it's a little ironic to hear flat earthers use it as a pejorative. They think it's a _bad_ thing, when in reality it is your brain's way of telling you, "Hey! Something you believe isn't right!" The irony being, if flat earthers actually experienced cognitive dissonance, they would most likely stop being flat earthers.

[@thomasneal9291]

no, they don't, and it's because humans have a tremendous ability to compartmentalize. some say that our extreme ability to compartmentalize is what actually constitutes "consciousness". you were correct about cognitive dissonance being a symptom instead of a cause though. it's a quite common thing to see exhibited by people who are extremely religious. the cause being the extreme disparity between what tenants of their "faith" tell them vs what they observe in reality. the constant extreme disparity produces cognitive dissonance as a primary symptom, and this can be recognized by the secondary symptoms displayed as denial and projection.

[@blogabenteuer]

People usually try to resolve the cognitive dissonance by adjusting their beliefs to be more compatible. I guess that's when they turn into hypocrites.

[@Thedamped]

Actually I think cognitive dissonance is a really important part of the functioning of a lot of belief systems. I think flat earth is a profound example. On it's face it's a pretty ridiculous belief, that the earth is flat. I think most people believe that you can't be duped by something like this unless you're stupid, especially something as fundamental as the shape of the earth. And most people think they themselves are quite smart. So once they start thinking maybe the earth is flat, they reason that they can't be wrong because since they are quite smart, they can't be easily duped. And once they ARE duped, any evidence to the contrary of their new belief is met with a lot of discomfort from the resulting dissonance. Once they discredit the evidence, the dissonance is resolved for the moment, reinforcing the behavior. Another example is Mormons always ask you to pray to God and ask if Joseph Smith is a prophet, they say that God will confirm this with a "burning in your bosom". I think many people feel cognitive dissonance from having acted in a way not generally in line with their beliefs, and feel the associated cognitive dissonance which they have now been told to interrupt as validation of the truth of the message. The classic psychology experiment really bears this out. Asking people randomly, either before and after they place a bet on their race horse, how confident are they that the horse will win. The act of placing the bet, causes dissonance which is resolved by becoming more confident in the horses likelihood of winning. So a greater portion of people said they were confident that the horse would win after they placed the bet. Anecdotally, a better came back to the experimenters after betting, asking to change his answer, he now felt more confident. Many fundamentalist Christians are told to "test their faith" by looking at evidence for evolution in small doses, being told that this will increase their faith. And as we have seen from psychology, indeed it will. I think a lot of belief systems have found ways to exploit flaws in our psychology, especially cognitive dissonance.

[@evilsharkey8954]

That’s still not the whole story. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that comes from new beliefs contradicting deeply held beliefs. It’s why so many people reject new information that is counter to what they already believe. The feeling of cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, so people tend to reject new ideas rather than work through that discomfort.

[@sykeassai]

This has given me pause for thought. I have both religious faith and scientific faith. Does it make me Cognitive dissonance when I can rationalize both sets of beliefs and can line them up next to each other so that one does not clash with the other? My prime example is the Big Bang. While I accept scientifically that Stephen Hawkins made the claim that there was no scientific evidence of a being, being involved in the big bang. I rationalize that my god was there, but was either responsible for the pre-bang catalyst or that my god chose to let it unfold. This is based on a belief of a god who is beyond scientific prove-ability or disprove-ability. I rationalize these two beliefs as being compatible because just because there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, there is, as far as I know, no evidence to disprove it either. Does this make me Cognitive Dissonance for holding such perceivably contradictory views that it happened scientifically but at the same time something beyond science was also involved? Or does that make me not Cognitive Dissonance and just perceived as crazy?

[@mcchilde2903]

As a person made of straw, I'm really glad you're talking about this. I'm sick of people using "strawman" as an insult.

[@pseudohuman2645]

“I can’t refute your argument so let me resort to accusing you of committing a logical fallacy that I have no understanding of”

[@eldritchgod4308]

"I know I just said that water can burn, but you're a doo doo head. suck on that, nerd."

[@Tethloach1]

why does the person believe what they believe? how did they arrive at those beliefs? what is their thought process and goals? how do they think about things and what kind of person are they? what arguments are they making and how do you beat them at their own game?

[@Mitobu1]

The fallacy fallacy

[@lukeseaman2994]

@@eldritchgod4308 This is unrelated, but I love watching things burn on top of water, it looks so bizarre

[@xavierrodriguez2463]

@@eldritchgod4308 that's a chad argument strategy

[@StrongMed]

Dave this is a great summary! Thanks for fighting the good fight on behalf of all of us!

[@TheChocoboRacer]

he threw so much shade, shits hilarious

[@irock5624]

" all of us" now there's fallacy!

[@frostyvoid827]

606 likes

[@EdaliaDayCreative]

So interesting. It never occurred to me that these people didn’t know what the words meant. I’ve been endlessly confused by their usage and just assumed I didn’t understand their points properly as they didn’t seem to make any sense.

[@WaterZer0]

They don't understand their points either.

[@TheAlison1456]

Arguing by using complex words is a kind of rhetorical device. Same goes for simple words, so idk, feels like there's no saving grace.

[@Cyberplayer5]

Yeah it is some what like the joke in the Prince Bride. Where the character is running around say inconceivable. XD

[@accountlol7409]

@@WaterZer0 and trip over their own excuses

[@crazydragy4233]

@@TheAlison1456 There really isn't. And it's such a pain lol.

[@notveryobservant1056]

3:50 “Directly quoting someone is the antithesis to a strawman” This is a bit misleading because you can directly quote someone while still strawmanning someone’s argument by using a quote out of context and mislead people with that. Just because someone quotes their opponent does not mean they did not strawman them. I thought that was an important clarification to make.

[@harrypotterfan2536]

Good point.

[@antiksur8883]

That doesn't exactly follow. While yes, quotes taken out of context can mislead people, it is only if you've constructed a prior argument which is misleading and use these quotes to show that it is the case. That's how quotes work. They are supplements to arguments. So, while directly quoting someone can add to deception, I don't think it can be assessed as the primary cause of deception.

[@notveryobservant1056]

@@antiksur8883 Yes, I agree. The way he said it just made it seem (to me) that he meant that quoting someone will *never* be deceptive. I don't mean to say that when quoting someone maliciously it's the quote or act of quoting that is at fault.

[@NukaLemonade]

Science deniers' new favorite buzzword is "reification." Used correctly, the word means a type of cognitive bias where you fail to draw a distinction between a simplified model of a thing and the thing itself. An exaggerated example would be looking at the world from space and expecting to find all the countries with visible lines and their names written on them, because that's what globes always look like. Or say you use Fourier analysis to decompose a guitar chord into three component notes. From a mathematical standpoint, that means you can effectively say that there are three identical guitars, each playing a different note. Reification would be attempting to find those extra guitars and sell them. Using a model for its intended purpose is not reification. It isn't wrong to (for example) continue to use Newtonian gravity which assumes there is an instantaneously transmitting attractive force between masses, even if you know that "force" is really an emergent effect of mass curving spacetime. Newtonian gravity is orders of magnitude simpler than General Relativity, and in nearly all situations the differences are so small that the extra calculation effort won't be worth it. It would only be reification if you knew you're dealing with one of the situations where Newtonian gravity is unreliable and try to use it anyway.

[@thomasneal9291]

I wonder where they are picking these terms up from? I know places like "The Discovery Institute" try to introduce their rubes to terms of similar ilk when providing misinformation about evolution, but science deniers using "reification" sounds more like that's coming from a well-paid anti-AGW website.

[@lurch666]

@@thomasneal9291 I find that a lot of these deniers use the terms that have been used to point out heir flaws. I think they think that if they get in first pointing out a logical fallacy (usually incorrectly used) then that might stop their actual logical fallacy being pointed out.

[@2854Navman]

@@lurch666 Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. Makes a lot of sense.

[@scptime1188]

Very well stated.

[@brucebaker810]

@@thomasneal9291 maybe that's what the "Discovery Institute" discovers. New bafflespeak. Certainly no research. Steve Novella calls them the DiscoTute.

[@donarktos6400]

"One day I hope to do a whole playlist on philosophy and logic..." Yes! Please do it! It's badly needed these days!

[@donarktos6400]

@@thotslayer9914 Oh, I have and do. Wasn't asking for myself ^^ And yes, I mostly am. I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist with a strong tendency towards antitheism.

[@donarktos6400]

To put it short and simple: While I am open to the idea, that perhaps there may be something "supernatural", there just hasn't been anything brought forward, let alone happened to me personally, which convinced me of it actually existing. As for the antitheist-part: Even if there was any god, none of the proposed would be acceptable to me for their in many parts quite horrendous and toxic "holy" scriptures. Judging by those and what these gods - assuming they existed - apparently do inspire in great parts of their believers, in my eyes every single one of them simply is repugnant.

[@donarktos6400]

@@thotslayer9914 As I've already stated: I have and do. In fact I studied philosophy, psychology and german studies. This is why I consider myself as a secular humanist first and foremost.

[@donarktos6400]

@@thotslayer9914 Yeah, wathever...

[@elmo4672]

@@thotslayer9914 It's hilarious that you realized you weren't changing anyone's mind especially someone well versed in what they talk about so you decided to end it with a condescending reply

[@sirellyn4391]

Ad-hominem: It gets tricky when you say: "You are uneducated therefore you are wrong." Being uneducated does not immediately make someone wrong. It may be a correct assessment of education in this field of study. It may even be LIKELY that someone is incorrect, but it is still does not specifically refute any point presumably learned from education. Some people don't understand the nuance with you refute the point, THEN say you are "uneducated" etc.

[@andpe161]

Agreed. I wrote the same point before looking at the comments: I think Dave could be more clear about the explanation of Ad Hominem. Saying "this person is a con man" is not Ad Hominem, but only when the statement is treated as separate from the original line of argument. The original argument still needs to be disproven, as also con men can be correct. Showing the contrast would be educational.

[@EldestZelot]

These are informal fallacies, they don't necessitate someone is wrong. Induction doesn't lead to a logically necessary conclusion/100% true or false. These are the *most likely* wrong kinds of mistakes to make. By committing the fallacy you are significantly more likely to be wrong than right so it means that the person making the claim should attempt to reassert it in a light that doesn't reflect the fallacy. E.g. A fallacy of composition, a brick wall being made of brick (this technically could be said to be a fallacy of composition but it's obviously cogent reasoning). But in most cases this will be erroneous reasoning. This same rule applies for all of the informal fallacies.

[@adrianmh]

Argumentum ad hominem: Every internet argument ever written

[@dominikweber4305]

You are obviously wrong because your name is adrian

[@Ivrycoast]

You have so much cognitive dissonance it makes me angry!!!

[@valentinfranco4528]

Talk about a straw man.

[@happysongs4kyrone]

Boy, you sure are on a slippery slope

[@Haqueip]

Bro's using the division fallacy

[@VoodooBoot]

Bulgarian here. We actually now nothing about the US, so that one is valid. Наздраве!

[@doofismannfred4778]

Alright. That one gave me a chuckle. 😎👍

[@drlegendre]

Well I'm an American, and all I know about Bulgaria is that they have an excellent small arms industry and produce an exceptionally strong type of feta cheese. Oh, and the throat singers.. I forgot about the throat singers.

[@ZakisHereNow]

Ok I lol’d....

[@Bizija123]

Correct! You also know nothing about Macedonians. So stop bothering us and siding with racist fascistic Greeks.

[@PhrontDoor]

American here. We know less about the US than Bulgarians.

[@grosty2353]

I get that answering con men’s followers in the comments probably gets annoying, but I just wanna say that I appreciate you being active in the comments.

[@SaeedAcronia]

Although rejecting someone's argument because they're "unqualified" is not Ad Hominem, it is actually an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Just because someone is not qualified in a certain topic doesn't invalidate their reasoning.

[@thomasp506]

I don't think he's rejecting their argument *because* they're unqualified. It's just icing on the cake. It's like: their argument is incorrect, they have no evidence to support their claims, so they're wrong. Also, they're unqualified and clearly don't know what they're on about, and this all adds ups.

[@gregorsamsa1364]

Yeah, it would be invalid if it were presented deductively like that, but he didn't actually do that. When virtually every legit, relevant expert on earth disagrees with you, AND you don't even have any sort of credentials, that is good inductive warrant to conclude you're most likely incorrect and just dunning-krugering out

[@SaeedAcronia]

@Caleb Baierl thanks! can you give me an example?

[@PaulMcElligott]

They’re wrong because of reasons X, Y, & Z. They don’t know they’re wrong because they’re unqualified and don’t know better.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@gregorsamsa1364 "is good inductive warrant to conclude you're most likely incorrect and just dunning-krugering out" Indeed; but the topic is LOGIC. Logic does not deal in "most likely". [Except as noted above; "Inductive Logic" isn't exactly logic, but it is a form of argumentation that deals in probabilities]

[@Suchega_Uber]

My favorite fallacy is the fallacy fallacy which basically means someone using an incorrect argument may not actually be incorrect, just either communicating poorly or accidentally arriving at the correct conclusion. It really irritates people who put all their eggs in the "I know this big word and it means I'm right and you're wrong" basket. It helps me bypass messy arguments with people like this that I just don't have the headspace to deal with.

[@SpydersByte]

Nathan Oakley desperately needs to see this, literally all of his defenses center around this or that logical fallacy and he has no idea what they actually mean.

[@vpheonix]

All the while committing the very same logical fallacies him self.

[@San_Vito]

@Ron Maimon What? Logical fallacies are logically incorrect reasonings. In deductive logic, you can't reach a valid conclusion from your premises, even if all of them are true. It's objective because we're talking about the logical structure of an argument and not the empirical content the premises might contain.

[@gorisenke]

@Ron Maimon all examples given in the video were examples via phrasing and structure. The fallacies listed here can be identified through clarity. And personally I cant say I'm at fault for calling out what's been said if the accused (let's be honest, I'm making a claim against someone) has used such a statement that can be so heavily misconstrued due to preconceived notions they have not addressed. And it's not like my calling of logical fallacy is irrefutable, as is nobody else's. But there is no correlation between brown hair and understanding of physics. Whether they perceive it as such doesn't change that, so whether they meant to or not, they committed logical fallacy.

[@dopaminecloud]

​@Ron Maimon Easily proven wrong. Analyzing argument helps you see logic leaps. This is inherently helpful in all forms of critical thinking.

[@San_Vito]

@Ron Maimon Yes, I'm talking about logical structure. A logical structure that guarantees that your conclusion is wrong, regardless of any premise... Content does not matter. That's the definition of a logical fallacy.

[@clairet5636]

Argument from authority is not a fallacy, it’s just a weak argument, and not because people are liars, but because people can be mistaken. Someone can really be a doctor and disagree with other doctors, or really be a scientist and disagree with other scientists. Science is not some set of dogmas determined by consensus but is continually being expanded and improved upon. This naturally results in any innovation being outside the current consensus.

[@maximeperron12]

Very well said sir. It is not because someone doesn't have a diploma that they can't question and debate a subject.

[@tampazeke4587]

And doctors and scientists are human. They're not immune to believing conspiracies, lies or religious myths.

[@tampazeke4587]

@@coolnobodycares Of course they would. People don't believe in things that they know are lies or myths but it doesn't mean that they're not lies or myths.

[@patricksanders5081]

Thank you for pointing that out. Claire

[@tampazeke4587]

Argument from Authority or Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy when it meets the standards that define logical fallacies. When an argument doesn't meet those standards and definitions it isn't. By making a general statement that Argument from Authority isn't a fallacy and then offering as proof something that isn't an Argument from Authority meets the definition of a Strawman fallacy.

[@UnitNo.2]

I'm going to start a conspiracy theory channel just to get a bunch of followers and than when this guy debunks me make a reply video saying "Yes Professor Dave is Right. I have been lying to you and you were suckered. Now go use some critical thinking skills to prevent this from happening in the future and learn some things." Lol

[@Reasonably-Sane]

Wouldn't you be commiting the Catfish Fallacy then?

[@UnitNo.2]

@@Reasonably-Sane yes.

[@scrambledmandible]

@@Reasonably-Sane It's for the greater good

[@erikblaas5826]

A new conspiracy? We have already flat earth, hollow earth and some other distortions ( distances not what they seem to be / not what we are tolled ) ... How about a spectral earth, "Etherardia" the world that can not be seen or touched, anyone?

[@NorgeDude]

You may have started a new cult b4 he debunks your theories. It might be too late by then...you and your Rolls Royce's and mansions from all those cult members. You might not want to give that all up! lol

[@yozor.8693]

Thank you. As a student of philosophy, many a time I've tried to explain these things to people. Another similar issue I always get is people thinking a reductio ad absurdum argument is a logical fallacy, when it's not. It's a rhetorical device that can be used validly to demonstrate a flawed bti of reasoning.

[@stumbling]

Steve got a DUI? Man, those brown-haired people really are trouble.

[@guywithknife]

It’s true because a guy in a coat said so!

[@dano8902]

Yeah, we're just the worst :)

[@0ddSavant]

That’s why I dyed my hair. It’s probably the 2nd best way to avoid a dui. Can’t be too careful, ya know?

[@spironspirit6502]

yeah we're all trolls lol

[@brandongunnarson7483]

Oh my god I would love philosophy and logic from professor dave that would be awesome!

[@zacharysieg2305]

He knows a lot about the logic stuff!

[@floop_the_pigs2840]

Nah man, bros a physical science guy

[@munstrumridcully]

@@floop_the_pigs2840 the _best_ science 😃

[@jankriz9199]

Oh I would love it too! I ditched so much philosophy for science in school and now I crave it

[@CattleCluj]

There's also AntiCitizenX which is a good channel. Focuses mostly on atheism, but delves into logic, and sometimes psychology as well. His channel is well worth checking out, he's one of the few people who bothers explaining the difference between proof and evidence, something which I see that many people don't know. So please, do check his channel out.

[@PC.NickRowan]

Arguement from authority: 1949: "Doctors all around the country choose camel cigarettes when smoking. Talk to your doctor about the benefits of smoking camel cigarettes!"

[@burkean]

Ironically, your Camel cigarette example is pretty close to what professor Dave presents as the OPPOSITE of argument from authority. Camel was making the case for a scientific consensus, or at least scientific respectability of smoking. I think Dave gets it wrong, though: argument from authority is in contrast to an argument that references demonstrable evidence.

[@vladprus4019]

@@burkean Argument from authority is essentially a reverse ad hominem. Ad hominem: That person is wrong because of who they are, actual evidence is not important Argument from authority: That person is right because of who they are, actual evidence is not important

[@Maerahn]

I would argue that's more a case of advertisers of the time being manipulative with the available information. Ad Agency: "Soooo, Mr. Doctor-person, can you present us with any evidence that Camel cigarettes DON'T have amazing benefits?" Doctors: "Well, actually, there's some early indications that smoking ANY cigarettes might actually have some health RISKS..." Ad Agency: "But do you have any EVIDENCE that it's CAMEL cigarettes IN PARTICULAR?" Doctors: "Well... not SPECIFICALLY Camel, no..." Ad Agency: "Great! We'll put you down as endorsing them over other brands then, because that's essentially what you just did--"

[@smashexentertainment676]

My music teacher died in his mid 50's because of smoking too much Camel. I'd recommend Morley. The Cigarette Smoking Man in X-Files was practically breathing through them and lived through all 11 seasons just to die from unrelated reasons.

[@uuddlrlrabsmhm8430]

@@burkean Argument from authority is like saying brown egg said brown is beautiful so brown must be beautiful since I hatched from said brown egg.

[@nienke7713]

cognitive dissonance is a feeling of mental discomfort you experience when your beliefs are contradicted by something else (which could be other beliefs you hold, feelings you experience, observations you make, or information presented to you) and it is something people want to get rid off, which can be done by changing beliefs, dismissing observations as a fluke, ignoring new information, or trying to find an explanation that allows both the first believe and the other thing to both hold up at the same time. It is a feeling you can experience when you believe in something that is false and are presented with truthful information, but can equally occur when you believe in something that is true and are presented with misinformation, or even when you believe in something that is false and are presented with something else that is contradictory but also false. The examples you gave seemed more like people just being hypocrites in their behaviour compared to their beliefs, and although that can sometimes cause cognitive dissonance, it doesn't have to (often cognitive dissonance only occurs when they are made aware of their behaviour not lining up with their beliefs)

[@jacqslabz]

In some extreme cases, this is known as the plug your fingers in your ears, put you head in the sand, and scream "LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!" response. See people who continue to complain about vaccines having mercury, when vaccines now literally no longer contain mercury.

[@JamieTransNyc]

Absolutely correct.

[@n.o.a.h.-northernontarioaq7991]

Was just coming to make this correction as well...unfortunately Dave, in correcting, also got it wrong.

[@nuorigin]

I'm another here to correct professor dave. I used to think the same thing. It's not just having those beliefs. It's the recognition and discomfort felt once those beliefs are brought to light.

[@ray_x6959]

sounds like kent hovid and every falt tards in a nutshell

[@spoookd]

It's really annoying when a flat earther tends to shout these terms every time I get a word in. They don't even provide an actual answer or explanation to my question, just shout fallacy nonsense until they ignore me or move on to their own question..

[@CattleCluj]

It that case you could point it out to them that they have committed the fallacy fallacy.

[@bugsmith9751]

i have only had that happen to me a few times, usually i just get the typical "your brain washed/delusional" or broad insults towards my person and intellect edit: literally was called a bot once just for stating a fact of reality, no argument against it, just "hah! look at this chat bot! guess i gotta block another one!" i think they just figure anything that seems too smart for them to understand must be fabricated by an advanced machine XD

[@spoookd]

@@bugsmith9751 Ah, the world of flat pancake people

[@bugsmith9751]

@@spoookd ye, dont they know that pancakes are secretly round?

[@JJPMaster]

CattleCluj kill em all profile picture

[@bartonpaullevenson3427]

Good one. I wouldn't have said science is a body of knowledge, though--more a method of interrogating nature.

[@bugsmith9751]

for a second i read that as "i would have said" not wouldnt, was about to get technical XD

[@Zartren]

"Science tells us" is a phrase I have heard a lot, usually accompanied by a reference to some textbook or other. And a lot of arguments made by flat earthers and creationists alike have to do with people believing the contents of those books. Thus I give Dave a pass here. Related to that, I feel that one of the common themes with science deniers is a profound misunderstanding of scientific consensus and the methodology that leads to this consensus. Deniers seem to think that everyone either believes the "claims" made in science textbooks, as if on faith, or actively participates in some deception.

[@bugsmith9751]

@@Zartren i think the only "text book" your thinking of that flat earthers get there crazy ideas from, is 1 interpretation of the bible... of a part that doesnt even specify in detail that its flat

[@bugsmith9751]

@@Zartren as for your reading that as "science tells us" he said how he would have defined science, not what science says

[@Zartren]

@@bugsmith9751 precisely. Especially from creationists, I have heard them equate science textbooks to religious or spiritual texts that people believe in. Similarly, they also compare science communicators to preachers. These flawed comparisons are central to some science denial arguments. When we quote science textbooks, to them it simply confirms that we base our own arguments on faith. It thus appears to me that for many creationists and flat earthers, science is actually just falsehoods passing for reasoned knowledge. To tackle related fallacies then I see two option. For one, we can find a way to educate the deniers on what science is, how scientists work and why we can at least trust on the accumulated scientific knowledge for at least some now basic theories. That wouldn't fit in this small video. The other option I see is basically do what Dave did here and simplify and concentrate on the arguments. So, I agree that his definition here is flawed, but I excuse it in this specific context.

[@Drawoon]

Hey man, sorry if I come off as a bit aggressive. You seem like a pretty cool dude and you are helping people. I'm honestly just nitpicking.

[@SnoFitzroy]

This is so random lol?

[@Drawoon]

@@SnoFitzroy This was form another comment chain I started, I wanted to apologize for that.

[@XENOMATTER-rq8bi]

Emily van der Hidde just put it with this comment I have no idea what ur apologising for

[@billtisch3698]

I always try to use the ad nauseum fallacy when arguing with idiots. Throw up on them and they shut up.

[@ekimnosettam]

I love your chemistry content and use it frequently in my classes. Having said that, please don't stop debunking things, Savage Dave is one of the most entertaining things on the internet.

[@thomasneal9291]

should totally start a new channel and call it: "SAVAGE DAVE SPEAKS"

[@guywithknife]

I’m an electric flat earth creationist and I say this entire video is an ad hominem straw man argument from authority that’s begging the question. I know, because I’m wearing a lab coat.

[@tominee9458]

Hahaha nice

[@ferociousfeind8538]

Nobody should trust a guy with a knife.

[@guywithknife]

Ferociousfeind I never specified what kind of knife. What if its one of those plastic ones they give you on planes?

[@heavyrain5949]

This man speaks the truth xD

[@brucebaker810]

I suspect you may not be an actual lab coat. But, rather, just play one on KZbin.

[@darkychao]

I feel like this should also include the Fallacy Fallacy, since there are people who think that it means "if Person A points out a fallacy in Person B's argument Person A's argument is instantly wrong".

[@TheNomad94]

You mean Person Bs argument would be wrong

[@darkychao]

no, I said it right. people think that the "Fallacy Fallacy" means that in pointing out a fallacy you invalidate your own argument. the actual Fallacy Fallacy is closer to "asserting a point is invalid because a fallacy was used to support it"

[@TheNomad94]

@@darkychao Your wording confused me lol

[@ladymercy5275]

If he was capable of differentiating truth-value from validity, he wouldn't have to hide his stupidity behind blank terms like "fallacious." What does that mean? Does it mean false, or that the conclusion for an argument was stated in a form that doesn't necessitates its truth as a logical consequence implied by the argument's premises? Dude's an idiot, and he thinks he's smart, but it's pissing me off, because he's _claiming_ to represent logic, which is a field that exists, and it's _not at all compatible with any of the information in this video._ Like, dude, would you mind calling it something else, if you're not going to bother spending a day in a classroom where this course is taught? Logic is based on rules. It's deduction, via logical inference, and every single conclusion that is made from within that logic system has a specific rule that enables it as valid. *Every single logical conclusion happens for a reason,* and you have to like... _state the reason, when you make it._ Seriously. Every time. He has done this exactly none of the time. He's going at it like, it's a scattered collection of folk wisdom. It's not. That is so unbelievably wrong... not only do different forms not agree on what does or doesn't constitute the established rules for rational deduction, but if a deduction doesn't rigorously the set of possible computations allowed by that logic system, then by definitions it's illogical! That's what the word _means._ So he's up there pretending to represent the community that came up with the mathematical tools that put human footprints on the moon, but he's lying and selling some counterfeit B.S. that isn't anything like formal logic... _while masquerading as exactly the same uninformed, uneducated 'charlatan' he claims to be the great defender of truth against. I'm infuriated by the churlishness of the hypocrisy. I'm cool with people sharing their folk wisdom, by which their political orientation, or whatever the fuck. *That's not logic.* I don't know what that is... some kind of roleplaying, maybe. Certainly not a formula you can run through a computer system to get an objective response. If your test for 'fallacious' reasoning doesn't terminate with this device: plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/ ... then it's not a property of deterministic logic. It's called a Turing machine. Your keyboard is an example of one. The spacebar doesn't connect its information signal with the remaining hardware to produce the illusive interface you see before your eyes by establishing scientific consensus among experts. I've never heard such a foolish misunderstanding of what function logic serves in reality, that beats that tired ol' slogan.... (we'll just skip Copernicus for now) ... because it doesn't need consent to parse the logic for converting ASCII into the statements that acquire meaning from the word combinations for which they are typed to symbolically represent. Logic is like that. It's grammar, but for the mind. It has rules. Professor-Pretends-he's-People reasoning is ad-hoc.

[@darkychao]

what?

[@yowza9638]

Steve: *Visibly bald* Dave: “He’s wrong because his hair” Lol maybe Steve is just thinning idk

[@kolliprii1759]

ha has a hole in his head, and he has perfectly round hair making his head look like bald. Thats probably one of the reasons why he is wrong.

[@yowza9638]

@@kolliprii1759 Oh heck yeah, never trust a man whose bowl cut is flush with his cranium

[@AverageAlien]

4:40 I don't think this fallacy has anything to do with the "authority" lying about their job title or degree. This fallacy is more about how someone's degree or "authority" doesn't automatically prove them right

[@kelliemcguire2592]

Agreed. A lie isn't a logical fallacy, it's just a lie. The video completely misrepresents the argument by authority fallacy.

[@MsMiiSuki]

I really and truly love all your work Dave. It’s awesome and straight forward and easy to digest. You’ve helped me mold myself into a well thought out source of logic and reason against the sheer idiocy out there. I am grateful.

[@koljag5]

I will admit to having misused ad hominem recently. Well, now I know.

[@Nae_Ayy]

Growth is always good.

[@StormsparkPegasus]

A simpler way of describing ad hominem is: attacking the person instead of their argument.

[@joechan3388]

Does it mean doublethink, doublespeak and cognitive dissonance are two sides of the same coin?

[@ddavidjeremy]

Cognitive Dissonance would be a great metal band name.

[@SergeantSpandex]

I want to start Dognitive Cissonance

[@equious8413]

@@SergeantSpandex rather than being on stage yourself, your stage personalities could be Cis Gendered canines.

[@anonymus5966]

no it wouldn't

[@prognition970]

too cliche

[@ddavidjeremy]

First Album from Cog Dis. "Open Dialog"

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

If Steve were ginger, however...

[@UNIRockLIVE]

Ah, i see what u did there

[@marxunemiku]

lmao

[@andrewhandelsman834]

He'd just have no soul

[@archiesimpson5172]

It's been a good 15 years since my logic course as an undergrad, so I make sure to Google to refresh my memory before I call out a logical fallacy. I still misunderstand the definitions and examples sometimes, so thank you for this very clear and concise video.

[@vecto8695]

now i can argue with people on another level by telling such complicated words

[@superfate9424]

Half the time the people I’ve seen who try and say things about someone using a strawman usually somehow follow up or precede with their own strawman it’s so embarrassing that they don’t even notice...

[@futurestoryteller]

The real problem is yeah, they don't notice, but also a lot of people around them won't notice these little hypocrisies either, sometimes even the person they're arguing with - and if *you are* that person, and you point it out to them they will implode from cognitive dissonance. They'll change the subject, imply you're misrepresenting them without providing proof, retreat from the conversation, or say it doesn't matter. They probably mean this too. People with any self-awareness are like unicorns.

[@andrewprahst2529]

I actually think you are wrong about what Argument from Authority, or at least didn't explain it well. You seemed to say, "Argument from Authority is when you quote someone who doesn't have authority" when that's not the case. It's using the fact that a certain party simply supports something as evidence instead of the fact that that party has demonstrated something to be true. It's the difference between "This well respected scientist said that this was true" and "This well respected scientist SHOWED that this was true. In the latter case, you're using the actual work that they did, rather than just their reputation.

[@jelk1]

Yea. I agree that he didn't address well why it isn't fundamentally sound to make an argument from authority. Also his explanation on why trusting in scientific consensus is okay was really shallow and largely just an argument from authority itself. He should've talked about something like how science is really a big chain of arguments based on evidence and when using scientific consensus as an argument you really are just referring to the chain of arguments which lead to the consensus being like it is, rather than just saying that it must be true because a lot of people said so.

[@BigPapaMitchell]

> You seemed to say, "Argument from Authority is when you quote someone who doesn't have authority" when that's not the case. That's because an argument from authority isn't a fallacy, it's a fallacy when it's a fallacious appeal to authority. If you are appealing to someone who actually is an authority on a particular topic, it isn't fallacious. This idea that an argument from authority is a fallacy is something pushed by the religious and conspiracy theorists to undermine the scientific network of trust we rely on.

[@sophiacristina]

@@BigPapaMitchell "If you are appealing to someone who actually is an authority on a particular topic, it isn't fallacious". That IS fallacious. It is fallacious when the argument is that this "someone" is an "authority" so he is right. Not-fallacious is the argument this "authority" represents, not what he is. And you ended up with an "ad hominem", if people are "religious" or "conspiracy theorists" don't makes them wrong neither makes authorities right. People said internet surveillance don't cared about you, that it was "conspiracy theory", yet Snowden and Cambridge happened and proved they made psychometric data from people to sway election, conspiracy people were right about internet.

[@BigPapaMitchell]

@@sophiacristina No it isn't, otherwise everyone would need to be an expert to have reasonable confidence on any topic. This is an anti-science position.

[@sophiacristina]

@@BigPapaMitchell I have not said people HAD to be an expert, i'm talking about your phrase, quote: "If you are appealing to someone who actually is an authority on a particular topic, it isn't fallacious". IT IS if your appeal is *because someone is an authority* and not because *what the authority said is true.*

[@jabber7604]

i hear you use the phrase "ad hoc" sometimes. what does it mean?

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

So an hoc solution is one that is arbitrarily chosen to suit that example and is not generalizable, so like flat earthers do this all the time. How do you get night and day? The sun does this. How do you get the seasons? The sun does this other thing. How do you get tides? The moon does this thing. They just make up something to try to solve that problem neglecting to understand that it contradicts lots of other observations.

[@jabber7604]

@@ProfessorDaveExplains thank you for telling me :)

[@trackerbuckmann1627]

Stating that someone doesn't have degrees might not be ad hominem, but it is an appeal to authority bias. And no, it is not just because "people lie" it is because you are relying on reputation rather than reason. Institutions can be wrong. Real doctors can be wrong. Look at malpractice statistics.

[@deepyaa3392]

Here after watching "How Not To Use Logical Fallacies" by Cosmicskeptic.

[@ga35am]

Cosmicskeptic is dead.

[@jacobhafar538]

@@ga35am aw, you mad he’s smarter than you

[@ga35am]

@@jacobhafar538 hahahahaha. A vegan preacher is at the end of intelligence ranking. Just to be clear, to all my vegan brothers and sisters, being a vegan is ok. Being a vegan preacher is the problem. Also, I'm not mad at all. Hahahahahahaha. It is a reference, dumbass. The mad tone is only on your special little head. Don't give attention to the crazy voices in your delusional mind. Hahahahaha.

[@slysamuel5902]

Can we be civil here?

[@jacobhafar538]

@@ga35am whole paragraph and practically calling me schizophrenic, and because I said a philosophy student is smarter than you? and you say you’re not mad. If you had said that it was a reference without getting so insufferable about it I would have just apologized and moved on, but now we’re both here being dumbasses calling each other names. fragile.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Great video!!!

[@theeyeiswatching8036]

@@el_reydeltamps ??

[@AndrzejGieraltCreative]

Why is it "Stop Misusing Logical Fallacies" as opposed to "Stop falsely accusing people of using logical fallacies"?

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

yes that would be a bit more accurate

[@silentseashelllistener3818]

@@ProfessorDaveExplains 6:54 - 6:58 When will the philosophy and logic playlist happen? It sounds fun binge watching the playlist and also quite educational. Plus, I can just link to people your philosophy and logic videos to educate them on certain topics.

[@kingrendal]

You're right that citing scientific consensus is not an argument from authority but it is an argument from consensus which is also fallacious.

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

It’s not. It’s just understanding science.

[@kingrendal]

Stating that something must be true because a high percentage of any body of people say it is true is fallacious and doesn't require any particular understanding of science. If 99% of economists say the economy is going to collapse and I state 'The economy will collapse' as a fact based on consensus that isn't understanding economics at all and it's the exact same fallacious reasoning you are using. Understanding science is understanding that it is a method of discovering truth not a special group of people that can dictate fact by majority rule. It is understanding that scientific knowledge is an ever evolving and changing thing and an unwillingness to accept this is no better than religious dogma. It was once scientific consensus that disease could be caused by bad air (miasma) and that germ theory was nonsense. It was once scientific consensus that the size and shape of one's skull determined intelligence. It was once scientific consensus that bad blood could make you sick and blood draining was an appropriate treatment. On some level I dislike contradicting you on this because science denialism has become such a big problem lately but you're definitively wrong here and it's not healthy to talk about science this way.@@ProfessorDaveExplains

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Nobody says it "must be true". It's just referencing our most complete knowledge at any given time. Knowing science and applying it is not a "fallacy", ever. By pivoting to economic predictions you are changing the subject. We are talking about concrete irrefutable things like the existence of atoms. And you're specifically referencing borderline pre-scientific conceptions of medicine that have no bearing on our modern outlook.

[@raymondwiggins354]

Citing consensus is a logical fallacy, but citing the evidence and conclusions drawn from that consensus is not, as long as it is pertenant to the discussion at hand. Just because a group of experts believe something to be true at a given point in time, doesn't make something inherently true.

[@kingrendal]

Exactly.@@raymondwiggins354

[@DeadEyeJedi]

The most common logical fallacy I've encountered is the 'argument through incredulity' one, such as 'If you want to think we live on a ball spinning at 1000mph....' or comments to that effect. The other one is simply to deliberately misinterpret laws such as Pascal's Principle. Not sure if it is actually a strawman, more a misinterpretation often based on the over-simplification of such laws, the obvious one being 'water always finds its own level', which is a _gross_ misinterpretation of the principle, and doesn't even stop to think what 'it's own' level actually _is_ .

[@davidkeller6156]

MrFlipside Not to mention their wrong interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[@scptime1188]

It's a strawman that leads to personal incredulity, two fallacies in one!

[@Z51MAELSTROM]

You seem to fail to understand "That's the point." They do this on purpose. They genuinely do not understand (I'm sure some do) what any of it means. Even when you dumb it down and try to explain they just come back with more incredulity. You can't win because they're already convinced they are correct, and further have no interest in learning new ideas. If they wanted to learn they'd take up community college classes. Everything is being pulled towards the center of the earth, so 'down' is a relative thing. "Well that doesn't make sense, the water would fall off!" Ignoring what you just said.

[@davidkeller6156]

King Orthocone But why don’t people fall off the bottom.😂😂😂😂

[@timriggs8651]

@@davidkeller6156There in no "bottom".

[@TheMindfulCraftsman]

As a big fan of logical fallacies, I liked your video up to 4:30....As a scientist, you don't need to be a lyer. Sometimes you are just wrong. "Science is just things that we know." is an incorrect statement. Contemporal science always comprises things we *think* we know and have a model for, but are later dismissed due to better explanations and models. And if we are lucky, we might even find the true one in specific cases. But by continuing your argument solely on the knowledge part and leaving out the speculative areas, you are committing a fallacy yourself. Your statement would lead to the wrong conclusion "The scientific concensus says X about A, therefore X must be true." ...ask Kopernikus about the scientific concensus of his time 🙈 ...the rest I liked.

[@mkaleborn]

Yeah I thought that part of the video could have been buffed up a bit. I see 'Argument from Authority' or 'Appeal to Authority' cropping up around Isaac Newton alot. "Isaac was a genius in Math Topic X, so his opinions about religion and the universe (Topic Y) must also be true. Do atheists think they are smarter then Isaac Newton?" If the scientific consensus around Newton's time agreed with Newton's premises on religion, the nature of the universe, God, etc...that would be scientists (and the consensus) simply being wrong, not liars, as you said. People in the 21st century invoking that erroneous scientific consensus, and the acknowledged geniuses that espoused it, to justify their belief in XYZ is the fallacy part. Anyway, I just thought it could have been explained better as you did. But a great video nonetheless!

[@feetfinderguy7044]

Well said

[@daniel9973]

Depends on your definition of knowledge.

[@adamlord3550]

Dave literally never said that. He's stating that using the consensus in particular field is not an appeal to authority, because it isn't. If the consensus agrees with a particular theory in a certain field, it means the majority of experts have tested that theory and obtained the same or similar results. Therefore, that particular theory is most likely the case. If you use one particular scientist to support a theory, that disagrees with consensus opinion, then that is an appeal to authority. Until that individual convinces the scientific consensus that their theory or new piece of evidence is correct, then the consensus would stand to disagree with them, meaning their theory or piece of evidence is most likely incoherent or incorrect. He also addresses the problem of fake scientists/experts on KZbin by presenting said fake scientists and experts as examples of appeals to authority. (and a reason for why you shouldn't be using an opinion from KZbin to disagree with consensus.) There is also nothing wrong with saying, the consensus opinion *is* correct, because fallibilism (knowledge without certainty) is a thing. He never once said, that the consensus cannot be wrong. Also, there are certain aspects of science which can be demonstrated to be certainly true, which is what he talks about in the section you time stamped. There are certain aspects of science which cannot be refuted, for example, making water by burning Hydrogen. You can demonstrate this to be true in a way which isn't refutable.

[@chrish4439]

@@adamlord3550 omg thank you, as soon as I read his comment I was going to say the same thing but you worded it 100x better than I was going to. Seriously where did he get half this crap he said Dave apparently said. It's like we watched a whole separate video than him lmao

[@veryblocky]

Even if it’s true, saying that someone is uneducated to argue against them is an ad hominem attack. You should argue against their point, not against their qualifications.

[@eclipset.9683]

Exactly. Just because I'm not a physicist, doesn't mean that I can't know a fact about physics. F=ma. To say that I'm wrong about that because I'm not an expert just doesn't make sense. You can cite facts that are proven by experts in an argument. If we weren't able to, it'd be hard to have a discussion about anything.

[@SnoFitzroy]

You're absolutely right but I think there is an extent to which qualifications absolutely do matter. I know quite a bit sbout ferrets, more than most people, for example, but if I'm debating a veterinarian, who are you going to believe? The expert (vet) or the guy who's simply reading a lot of nonfiction articles about ferret care? Lmao

[@deirdre108]

@@SnoFitzroy I would believe a ferret trainer.

[@eclipset.9683]

@@SnoFitzroy You'd have to consult the scientific literature. Besides, a vet doesn't automatically know everything about all things animals. And a ferret enthusiast doesn't know everything about all things ferret. Point is, just because you aren't an expert yourself, doesn't mean your argument or fact is wrong. The argument or fact is wrong because it is, not because it's coming from someone who isn't an expert. The same thing said about a given topic by the leading authorities can be said by any regular person, and it wouldn't be any less true.

[@Tredenix]

It's basically the inverse of the argument from authority - if "it's true because they're qualified" is a fallacy, then "it's false because they're not qualified" is too.

[@Ivan-td7kb]

Logical fallacies are often used to shutdown legitimate concerns. There’s definitely a bias towards being open to possibilities over being cautious.

[@gocarps9973]

That moment when you realise that your crazy parents have fallen for all those fallacies when arguing crazy shit

[@sorsocksfake]

That moment when you realize, in 25 years your kid will speakwrite the same thing in the SpaceXTubeX comment section :).

[@neco5740]

My father likes to use strawman arguments it's very frustrating

[@xsir_hcx3897]

@@neco5740 speaking from experience, maybe he doesn’t understand the point u or whoever is trying to make. Things like paranoia, anxieties etc can skew someone’s perception of a statement and result in a misunderstanding. Try to think about whether or not he’s reallyyy understanding you. If not, try to figure out what beliefs he has about the information and it’s source (you, etc). Like if ur Dad has a certain image of u, or whoever it is he’s talking to, and he’s just been ignorant in that assessment for a long time, years let’s say, he will have a bias to think ur acting or thinking in a certain way that he’s imagined u to be like. I have dealt with mischaracterization my whole life, and it’s felt horrible in many instances. Hope this helps.

[@gocarps9973]

@Caleb Baierl doubt it, some of my fam thinks obama is gay and a lizard

[@autodidacticartisan]

The best example of an ad hominem attack is saying "Greta thunberg doesn't know what she's talking about because she's only 16 years old"

[@josephjennings7932]

That's not ad hominem. The fact that she's only 16 actually has a LOT of influence on how logically sound her arguments are and how seriously we should take her.

[@KuraIthys]

Where I've run into problems with 'argument from authority' is typically a scenario like this: You're debating something on an internet forum. The nature of these forums is such that they're anonymous. You make an argument about some topic, Someone replies with: 'I'm an expert in X and you're wrong'. Generally X is indeed a scientific discipline that should know a correct answer here. But the reason this is so incredibly frustrating is because: 1. The forum is anonymous. Anyone can claim to be an expert. I can't verify their identity, so I can't examine their claims of expertise; Can't check their credentials, etc. 2. Even if they ARE an expert, they could be lying on purpose for all manner of reasons, nor does it actually mean their argument cannot in fact be wrong. 3. They make no counter-argument. No corrections. Nothing. The sum total of their response is 'I'm an expert and you're wrong'. That's not an argument. It can't be discussed. It doesn't help you determine WHY or HOW you're wrong. Even when you challenge them on this, 9 times out of 10 they will just repeat that you're wrong, and provide no justification for it. Or worse, they'll be dismissive and say they have no obligation to show you why you're wrong. (If you aren't willing to 'prove' why someone is wrong, why did you even bother wading into the middle of a debate on this subject?) I've had this in less anonymous contexts too, like facebook, where verifying credentials can be easier. But while that covers being able to prove whether the person is what they claim to be, it doesn't change the rest of their behaviour. They still just bomb you with 'you're wrong' without the slightest attempt to provide any context as to why, nor clarify what about your argument is incorrect... It's about as frustrating as things get in a debate.

[@LordRenegrade]

Argument from authority is controversial and nuanced. I wouldn't worry about it here. They're really just going all "ipse dixit" on you. If you have _real and valid_ reason or evidence for your position, they can suck it, even if they are an expert in the field (which they haven't proven with their statement of "I'm an expert" anyhow - claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence). Consider the opposite: If real and valid evidence and/or reason was no match for authority, then why *aren't* we still using Aristotelian physics? By the way, you will not be able to change the minds of close-minded idiots...they're called "close-minded" (or "closed-minded") for a reason. It's always best to pitch an argument to a non-close-minded reader than whatever idiot is all "no, u!"... Finally, be cautious: the winner of the debate isn't necessarily correct. They just might be better at debate. That's how turds like Crowder or Shapiro get anywhere. Must be real hard for them to 'pwn' those first years!

[@grindupBaker]

Yes that's true. I've analyzed that myself and I'm a world-renowned expert on these interwebby practices.

[@dynamine203]

its not worth your time debating online

[@EleanorPeterson]

I'm a straight woman, but I've found that it's best to steer clear of phallusies.

[@momchi98]

Some Bulgarians know quite abit about America since you have some control over us and we like to replicate you in some ways. I know that was the point of the example, but I just love to hear the name of my country and wanted to write a comment about it. :D

[@evanhayes5891]

We control Bulgaria? Great! Give us ALL YOUR YOGURT!!!

[@emilodelstad1893]

Your name is dope

[@momchi98]

@@emilodelstad1893 Thank you, it's my actual name, but it sounds weird in English. :D

[@dominikweber4305]

How would you know? You have a name i can't pronounce, so you're obviously dumb

[@CaesiumAKAPianoslam]

Oh shit, we have an argumentum momentum

[@slowloris2894]

Bro you didn't have to do Steve like that.

[@danielschuette2551]

One example to explain ad hominem is this: A: The homeless man says to save money put it in a bank. B: How would he know about saving money he's homeless? The fact that he is homeless doesn't mean his statement is incorrect. So pointing out his homeless as a basis for invalidating his statement would be fallacious. But to say he appears not to have saved money would not be fallacious. It would be a factual statement. He does in fact appear to have not saved money.

[@ExpendableRedshirt]

I think this is a great and much-needed channel. On one or two points in his posts, Dave has shattered a dearly held belief of mine or mistaken take on an issue and that is a good thing. A really worthwhile thing. We need more channels like this!

[@brianmacker1288]

An ad hominem is usually a statement of fact, so I am not sure why you think that is relevant. Calling someone "uneducated" instead of addressing their argument can be an ad hominem. Calling someone a con man also be an ad hominem if it is meant to make others distrust their claims in the furtherance of your argument. Perhaps refrain from doing so without providing specifics as to why it is relevant to the argument. When I use such assessements I make them specific. For example I would not just call someone "ignorant'. I would say something like "You are ignorant on this topic because it is clear you are unaware of X".

[@matthewquan9083]

So, if I say, "your statement is wrong for the following reasons, and thus you are a liar", that's me making a hopefully reasonable argument. If I say, "You are a liar and thus, this statement of yours is wrong" That could be an argument ad hominem and isn't a civil way to construe things.

[@matthewquan9083]

@@yourladbrennen3130 Not a great example on my part I admit. The idea is, I can make an case for why a statement is false, and thus make a judgement on the speaker. Or, I can judge the speaker first without considering their statement.

[@-gemberkoekje-5547]

I was scared i got the strawmen wrong, because i see strawmen arguments so often, but no, i was right. Conservatives are obsessed with using strawmen arguments.

[@superanimeniac]

it's truly fascinating. The other day I was debating some conservatives(a whole group, and they quite enjoyed ganging up on me, then mocking that I couldn't address all their comments), but they took my comment of 'hey, cops shouldn't be m***ering people in custody', and 'hey, given guns don't reduce gun violence, we shouldn't be flooding schools with guns', to instead present my argument, to disassemble it, that I don't like any authority ever, and I want to abolish prisons.

[@Am-uj6qn]

it s not just conservatives. It´s lots of big people in politics.

[@KittenCamper]

I don’t agree with everything that Professor Dave says or believes, but this is a very important thing to cover. Spouting logical fallacies is bad, but calling out fake logical fallacies is worse! I wish people could be more self aware. 🙄 It’s good to approach everything with logic and empathy, and that takes some self awareness as well.

[@katefromouttaspace378]

Haha yes, love getting accused of cognitive dissonance because I "didn't understand" what someone meant. It's magical.

[@TheAlison1456]

I'd be very interested in the proper application of fallacies because they can easily be misused (or unintentionally made) even if you understand them.

[@Nemmy72]

Feel like you should've explained to these people what "Projection" is, cause 99% of the time they "call you out" for fallacies they use

[@axolotl3964]

Dude, seriously, thank you for this clip. I appreciate the tone of this vid. Irritated with people who refuse to properly utilize Google when they encounter a word or phrase they don't quite understand.

[@thermalrain_yt9725]

HE WASNT PREPARED FOR THAT!!!!

[@bugsmith9751]

and he never will be

[@jerecakes1]

6:15 "the flat earth society has members all around the globe" - the flat earth society

[@ravenwarjoy]

I distinctly remember one time when I was doing some proofreading for a guy who wrote a really terrible story, and after he stubbornly refused to take any criticism (despite putting his work up for people to criticize in a discord server), I eventually lost patience and started ending my arguments by saying he's stupid, and he accused me of using "ad hominems".

[@definitelynotcrazyrei3890]

I hate it when people say "Which then begs the question..." "raises the question" is appropriate, "begging the question" is a fallacy. Don't beg the question.

[@George83_Thomas]

But please!!!! I want the question!! I’ll be good! l swear! l will do anything! Anything you want! Just give me the question!!!

[@kvazac4432]

My favorite scientist (carl sagan): science is more than a body of knowledge My favorite youtuber (prof. Dave): science is simply a body of knowledge Me: -_-

[@iqbalmuhammad2920]

Well, the educated ones can also differ from each other in their interpretations & conclusion

[@sethtipps7093]

"The scientist must set in order. Science is built with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." -Henri Poincaré

[@kvazac4432]

"Science is more than a body of knowledge... it's a way if thinking.. a way of skeptically interrogating the universe" - Carl Sagan

[@KuraIthys]

@@kvazac4432 I'd argue that science IS the way of thinking. The body of knowledge is merely a consequence. A side effect. A very useful one. In fact, the side effect is more important in most practical applications. But it is nonetheless a side effect, and not the heart of what science is.

[@someolddude3858]

In the same way that Biological "evolution" is both the observed fact of species' change and the name of the theory to explain that fact, Science is the both the knowledge gained by the practice of a suite of techniques of acquiring knowledge and the name of that suite of techniques. To the dismay of those who prefer dogmatic certainty, Science, in both meanings is a work-in-progress and only conditionally certain.

[@Allestya666]

I've known a lot of pseudoscientists to call it ad hominem attack when you call them out for lying, or call them a liar. It's very much important to the other person's argument if they lie or misrepresent facts. If argument x is hinged on fact z then pointing out that fact z is a lie and the person who said it knew it was a lie then it throws a major wrench into said argument.

[@jonm2416]

Thanks, I learned something. So basically the entirety of "flat earth" is just making straw man arguments, from one subject to the next. Basically every single thing they say to to try to disprove the globe model is a straw man argument.

[@mlc808]

Thank you. I’ve spent so much time trying to explain the misuse or misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) of logical fallacies to the relentlessly smug. This should be required viewing before using the internet.

[@leventeszegedy6711]

I love the slight agression in his tone

[@0ddSavant]

That was delightful, thank you. I think the graphic at 3:30 is probably supposed to be of a yelling man with his fists in the air, but I prefer to see it as a guy with a great big nose pulling on his ears. And it’s adorable.

[@cinamontoast2555]

It's actually a man covering his ears to the sound of fact while shouting the blah blah blah of pseudoscience

[@kirbosomething]

I thought it was a clown lmao

[@larsswig912]

I thought the mouth was a pacifier

[@-AxisA-]

This was a really well done video! Thank you dave, I've never fully inderstoos logical fallacies, but this is exactly the kind of video I needed to understand these. These were so simply explained that even a child could understand these.

[@Anthropomorphic]

That's not quite what cognitive dissonance means. It's not holding contradictory beliefs, but rather the sense of unease that can come from holding contradictory beliefs.

[@Speed001]

Hey, I give credit to these people actually trying to have a debate and cite their specific issues with things. I wish more people did that.

[@michaeltaylor8103]

Pointing out that someone is uneducated on the topic of physics when they are making claims about physic, in order to debunk their claims, is actually a perfect example of an ad hominem argument. Even though it is related to the topic of their argument, it still does not show any substantive problem with the argument. Ad hominems are almost always "statements of fact" as you put it.

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Did you miss the part about how I debunk con men? That's the point of this video.

[@michaeltaylor8103]

@@ProfessorDaveExplains You said con men, young earth creationists, and a third one I forget. This would have been against the creationists, but now that I think about it, I guess you said you were just falsifying their claims to scientific authority or something like that, so it might have been substantive

[@animeprofilepicture7357]

The crappy thing about slippery slopes is that there are so many real scenarios where it really happened

[@fakiirification]

it almost always happens. slippery slope is not a fallacy, and anyone claiming it is to defend their position has an ulterior motive to hide. politician: "we are not trying to take your rights, thats just a slippery slope fallacy. now... look at this shiny thing on the news while we take more rights away"

[@Jenifer_R_]

People misusing Straw Man is particularly annoying for me. Especially given I am in the habit of quoting them before responding.

[@Jenifer_R_]

@@Anonymous-wp7lm Most of the time they just throw it out to sound smarter than they are.

[@Zach-h2l]

Did you really find the strawman part of this video to be impressive? I first watched this video years ago and that bit stuck in my head as something I personally found so shockingly, unacceptably bad, and really disappointing as the first video of Professor Dave's that Ive seen. (after reading over my comment, I just want to say I hope it doesnt come across as me being aggressive at you personally lol). I have noooo idea how so few people in these comments have a problem with the idea that all you need to do is quote someone and thus you definitely didnt strawman them. Like how easy is it to parrot some excerpt you don't understand and then argue back based on a misunderstanding? Or quote someone, then explain that "these words mean [insert strawman here]?" Or quote someone selectively, and then argue against something that has nothing to do with that quote? Or just lie by omission, by what you didnt quote? It just is such an embarrassingly feeble attempt, such a low bar to claim that's all you have to do to magically represent someone's argument fairly imo. It made me try to come up with what my definition of the antithesis of a strawman would be, and while I'm no philosopher or intellectual, the best I could come up with is something like, you make an attempt to represent your opponent's argument, and then you be patient and receptive until you successfully have THEM tell YOU that you didnt strawman them, that you represented them fairly. If you cant manage that, then you have an uphill battle defending the claim you didnt strawman them, so maybe you should just say you two have reached an impasse and agree to disagree. I dont get how there's automatically integrity in a definition of strawmanning where a person can define for themselves, with no input from anyone else, if they commited one or not. Although this is kind of one of the issues I have with like, calling out logical fallacies in general.

[@Jenifer_R_]

@@Zach-h2l Hellloooo from the future! It's been over a year and I'm just high enough to tackle this. "I have noooo idea how so few people in these comments have a problem with the idea that all you need to do is quote someone and thus you definitely didnt strawman them." Key word here is 'definitely', as you gave examples: "Like how easy is it to parrot some excerpt you don't understand and then argue back based on a misunderstanding?" Likely very easy. All I can go on is how I debate, not how others may fail to do so. "Or quote someone, then explain that "these words mean [insert strawman here]?" This is a very easy trap to fall into as you are interpreting their argument. So, instead of saying "You said X which means Y", it is better to ask "Well, you said X, but did you mean Y?" "Or just lie by omission, by what you didnt quote?" Disagree that this is still in Strawman territory. We're into misinterpretation of facts country. "It just is such {...} a low bar to claim that's all you have to do to magically represent someone's argument fairly imo." Here I did omit part of the quote: "an embarrassingly feeble attempt," . Brevity or manners, you decide, but the point you were making is still intact. Quoting someone is representing their argument - no magic needed. What you do with that quote and how you argue against it is more important. I agree, quoting is not enough, but I find it a solid place to start.

[@rickcolumbo3148]

It's ad homunculus

[@youwaisef]

0:26 "So, I decided to make a brief video..." Ah, the *underplay how long your video really is fallacy*

[@dinohall2595]

I would consider a video with minutes in the single-digits brief.

[@someolddude3858]

And he never mentions underwear even once. No briefs anywhere to be found. And totaling missing in "stating the legal reasons for the suit based on statutes, regulations, case precedents, legal texts, and reasoning applied to facts in the particular situation."

[@NaderBelaid]

It’s a seven minutes long. So yeah it’s a brief video

[@OAlem]

Nathan Oakley thinks just saying "reification fallacy" means he doesn't need to present a flat earth model.

[@Igor-ug1uo]

Argument from ignorance is one of the most common logical fallacies in anti-science discussions.