Fallacious rhetoric is far too effective, as it appears reasonable from a superficial standpoint for most people. We're going to have to sell it to make it happen; otherwise, why would people want to be reasonable and accountable?
Hedgehog3342 ik this is very late but I’m learning fallacies, propaganda, rhetoric, and tropes in my 11th grade literature class so its at least taught at a few schools, or just my school idk
@Austin Martín Hernández You can argue the exact same thing for an atheist. By definition they are religious about the notion that there is no god, despite not being able to prove that claim. Not only that, but you use the term theist, except that just implies someone who believes in a creator, not some superhuman personal savior. There is infinitely more evidence for a creator than none. Notice how everything has somehow been created? Maybe it was Kal El, maybe just a mystic force, but we were created, and that isn't debatable. The difference between me and you is that I admit I don't know, you are the one making a definitive claim with no evidence. My only claim is that something that has been created has to have some type or form of creator.
@@davidjohnson8655 🤦🙄 Lie down before you hurt yourself. My goodness. For the billionth freaking time, you CANNOT prove a negative claim. And manmade (nonliving) objects and structures we know and have SEEN to be made by humans are not comparable to the natural world. A car does not reproduce, have self-moving processes (such as plate tectonics) or have any type of agency. An animal, for example a human, DOES. EDIT: Just saw your subscriber list. Wow, no wonder you made such a ridiculous comment. Talk about being a wingnut. Now I know you're not to be taken seriously. Take care.
It's actually very useful to know of these because, a lot of comedy (esp. satire) use these fallacies to prove a point. In fact, I bet one could short hand an improvised stand up routine with simply a common, well-known subject, and knowledge of logical fallacies.
This was a great video in listing some common logical fallacies. If you study them long enough, you will be able to tell when someone is using them against you, and will be prepared to defend yourself against it.
Hands down the best explanation of the types of Fallacys with understandable examples on CZcams. The only thing I’m complaining is that there could be more types of fallacy mention and how two fallacys could be similar. E.G Begging The Question vs Circular Reasoning / Red Herring vs Straw Man.
red herring and strawman arent similar at all. red herring is when you throw a random idea into the mix to distract from the argument. strawman is when you make up an argument for the OTHER person that they never said or implied. idk about circular reasoning and begging the question. those are pretty similar.
i watched it again. begging the question - why read the bible when we already know god isnt real? (we dont know god isnt real and this doesnt address why we shouldnt read the bible) circular reasoning - we know god is real because it's written by the bible and we know the bible is true because it's the word of god, who is real because it says so in the bible
I don't disagree with Jennifer M, but in an attempt to clarify the categories: My take is that Begging the question is a subset of a larger category of fallacies called Circular reasoning. In the subset, the truth of the conclusion is explicitly assumed in one of the premises. In the larger category, two premises are the mirror image of each other, or in some other way form a recursive loop which seems to justify the conclusion. (At least, to a stupid person) Similarly, straw man is a subset of a larger category of fallacies called red herring.(I do disagree with the word "random" in Jennifer's definition; the distraction may be carefully chosen for maximum effectiveness, in any red herring argument.)
GREAT presentation! Thank you for sharing on this interesting and important topic. The superstition aspect of the hasty generalization seems to rely too much on momentary consensus. You might have figured out something that no one else had. There may be little to no empirical evidence to support your view. Could that be considered a hasty generalization based on superstition? You say, "Paying attention to empirical evidence leads to rational conclusions." Generally, I agree. Examples might be Alfred Waegener or Galileo. Although they made arguments based on what they observed, their evidence was dismissed because it was not considered empirical evidence when they initially presented it. Later both men were proven correct. I understand that their adversaries were employing their own logical fallacies against them. Still, what's empirical data shifts. Or, what about proving Julius Caesar is real and the Hindu god Shiva is not? The only empirical evidence I have as to Caesar's factuality is the same I have for Shiva's. I have documents written by people I can't interview and statues of both. Yet, many rationally accept Caesar as fact and Shiva as myth. Could an argument be made for both without falling into Superstition. Curios on your thoughts.
Hi Ray, Thanks for your thoughts. I like your observation that "empirical data" can shift. Newton's notion of gravity was certainly reconfigured due to Einstein's relativity. Examples to support your claim are endless, so sure, in various cases, inaccurate perceptions of empirical evidence, or an unwarranted dismissal of a claim due to a lack of credible evidence, could determine a "superstition." Great point. As Socrates said, it's a good idea to question everything. Perceptions and interpretations of reality can change from one generation to the next, or in the blink of an eye. Your second paragraph discussion is pretty thought-provoking, too. I'd just say that it's easier to respect historical documentation that conforms more closely to the probable likelihood of past events actually happening, especially in relation to the laws of science and other forms of corroborating evidence. I don't know enough about Shiva to state an opinion one way or another, but we have a fair amount to work with regarding historical figures like Caesar although a host of issues need to be considered here, too. Patricians wrote most Roman history, for instance, and they were a slim albeit literate portion of the empire's total population. And as others have said, history is often either translated or invented by the victors. Best, Rod
A few comments: 1. Everything DOES happen for a reason - it's just that said reason is most likely mundane and clearly explainable. 2. Guns aren't designed to kill - they are designed to propel a projectile at high speed. The user of said firearm can choose to point it at a non-living target, at nothing in particular, or another living being. Your example mentioned knives, but for some reason you went to the very specific case of a kitchen knife. Would it have been any more reasonable to specifically point to a specially made skeet shooting shotgun as a case for all firearms? I realize these were examples provided, but it's worth addressing them.
It doesnt matter the use of the object, i could beat some one to death with a lamp but that doesnt make it it's use - the intention of the object is it's purpose. Knives are tools not weapons. Knives are designed to cut things be they ropes, vegetables, meat or intervening vegetation, that isnt to say that bladed weapons dont exist of course. Guns are indeed design to fire a projectile, that is the method of their function not their intention, their primary use is as a weapon to injure and cause death by injury.
I have no problem with guns, but it's ridiculous to say they aren't designed to kill. That was their original, and still their only, practical purpose. If you want to say that guns are only toys, and not tools, then do so. In which case I will tell you there is no reason for someone to have such a toy, just as there is nor reason to have a block of refined uranium to see how fast your Geiger counter will tick.
No guns are designed to kill, they are made to fire a projectile at high speed so they can kill or injure, that's why they were designed not to just shoot some melons for fun
@@joelhenderson3723 Logical fallacy 1: guns were created to kill people, therefore their primary purpose is to kill people. Debunked: Most guns are not used to kill people, and the primary purpose stated by gun owners is self defense, which rarely involves killing people. Even the millions of cops nationwide who carry guns daily kill fewer than 1000 people per year. The threat of violence can be a powerful deterrent, and often prevents actual violence. Logical fallacy 2: Guns can be used to kill, therefore there is no practical purpose to have one. Debunked: Hunting is a practical purpose, as is personal protection and the protection of others. Therefore it is not logical to say there is no practical purpose.
The complex question fallacy... I always used it as a joke to my friends, asking questions that they cannot answer. I find it hard to believe that people actually try to seriously get away with that rubbish.
Some people are so good at it and the fallacy is so subtle, that you barely realize what they are doing. You have to stay on guard, especially these days.
'Begging the question' made me think of how Reddit had tried to figure out who the Boston marathon bomber was, ultimately wrongly destroying people's lives in the first place. One positive thing that came of it is that Reddit has not, and likely will not forget about this. I've seen them jump on people who tried following the same path. Its an interesting thing to see, especially considering we don't really see this level of 'lesson learned' anywhere else.
A slippery slope proven right is spotting the foot-in-door technique in retrospect. Timing makes a difference. There have been situations where things went too far and were predicted by those who'd been accused of using this fallacy.
@@zybelannearaneta3346 No it isn't. For it to become a fallacy, he has to say something along the lines of “this is a great video *because* you are a Harvard professor”. He is saying two separate, unrelated things, asking if he is a Harvard professor and saying that this is a great video. Therefore, there are no relation and thus no fallacy. It would have helped if he used the word “because”, but it's just a comment, who cares about such inconsequential details
you can simply address it by saying it's a deviation from the argument. lay the argument out in logica, like 1 or more premises and a conclusion. if the topic is irrelevant, then it's a fallacy
Isn't the generalization fallacy itself a false dichotomy fallacy?! When people generalize in a statement they obviously know that not every single member of the group they generalize behaves in a certain way; but they make a statement based on a higher than random associated attribute to the group. For example, Irish people have lighter color hair compared to Italians. Well, we all know there are dark hair Irish. But the statement is not made in absolute, it's a comparison of two generalizations or averages. So, to assume that unless every instance of the issue is correct for the statement not to be a generalization fallacy is itself a false dichotomy or black & white fallacy.
When I brought this up to my English II professor his response was the best way to avoid the Hasty Generalization fallacy was to clarify statements with "generally" or "on average".
The Acients educated with a model known as The Trivium, i.e., Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric. This corresponds to contemporary primary school. Their version of university, i.e., The Quadrivium was where Mathematics, Art, Philosophy ( as we understand it), and Natural Philosophy (our concept of Science). This approach was abandoned ages ago, thus I believe thought, discourse, education, public policy is a hot mess. Now, I'll freely admit that young children need exposure to, and comprehension of the fundamentals of mathematics, science, history, geography, etc., having a highly logical mind, great verbosity, and masterful rhetorical skills in the developmental stage would be of profound value to a young adult whether they went on to formal university or embarked on an auto-didactic (self taught) pursuit of knowledge.
Idk if I agree with ur example of faulty anology. U can argue guns are made to kill or wound but what about bayonets, or pocket knives that are made for self defense or something else. I'm pretty sure butterfly knives weren't made to "cut carrots"
"Everything happens for a reason" is a phrase that can have diverse acceptions. In actual language usage that prase can be interchangeable with "every thing happens for a motive" , even an unknown, insensible or inplausible motive. The word "motive" can also have various acceptions: it is commonly used meanig "personal motivaton"', but "active cause" is also a possible acception.
@@williamf.buckleyjr3227 adding to my previous reply, I found out that "acception" for "accepted or received meaning" is considered obsolete. So excuse me for using an obsolete term, but it was not wrongly used.
The problem with this is that it essentially leads people to think that, because an argument CAN be falsely argued as a slippery slope, that there therefore is no such thing as a slippery slope, itself a fallacy of thought. If one admitted the existence of actual slippery slopes, and were able to distinguish between false claims of a necessary logical conclusion and an actual situation where one condition is not possible until a prerequisite condition has first happened to make it so, he might actually begin to truly think, rather than merely pride himself on avoiding certain fallacies while actually falling into others.
However, you have missed a few important and most frequently encountered logical fallacies such as equivocation fallacy, Ad Populum/Vox Populli, Post hoc Ergo Propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this) etc.
Would the faulty analogy example you gave be a good example? Like your saying guns and knives have different uses, guns are made to kill, where knives are meant to cut carrots. I don't think that's right. (Could be wrong) but most guns are made to kill and that's exactly what most knives are also made for. Even if you have to say combat knife. Is that really faulty analogy? Just trying to work this out in my head, I'm not sure.
Hi Bryce, I'd suggest that most knives are used for utilitarian purposes. For instance, most of the knives in your kitchen are used for culinary purposes. Best! Eric
So is it a slippery slope when a recovering alcoholic says they only have control over the first drink? Are the slopes sometimes actually slippery in real life?
I call this, "hijacking the conversation." It is meant to take the spotlight off the original topic, which the speaker wishes to avoid, and cause the listener to be distracted from the same and get caught up defending or explaining themselves, rather than addressing the original topic. Abusers do this frequently.
An obvious exaggeration, but most such questions are more subtle. It's like when a journalist asks a politician if he is a racist. No matter what the answer is, the question itself joins the person with the ideology, and forces the individual to prove a negative. Or a person accused of a crime "Why did you kill that man?", rather than "Did you kill that man?"
The slippery slope argument can be perfectly reputable if used correctly. It does not (I think) qualify as a fallacy, because it is an argument about probable outcomes, not certain ones. Fallacies are a concept applicable to logical propositions, which deal in crisp binaries of "true vs false" . The Second Amendment is a classic case of a slippery slope in operation. The original amendment (as the wording suggests) concerned the security of the nation (against external threats). That amendment has been used for a springboard, over the last four decades, for a completely new set of concerns: the security of individuals (against perceived threats from other individuals) and the security of "the people" against the putative internal threat of a tyrannical government. But this slippery slope mission creep was not a certain outcome at the time of the amendment, as witness the fact that it took several centuries to get underway. Hence it is not the province of logic.
@Lance Storm never heard of this stuff in his school, therefore all schools actively goes against critical thinking, and thus the growth of their students, because they are evil. There, knocked a few out in one go.
Here's MY question as a guy who's honestly trying to learn to argue (not fight) without sounding like a damn fool: isn't calling something a logical fallacy...a logical fallacy, itself?? For instance, the slippery slope. Doesn't the slippery slope argument OFTEN come true??
I acknowledge this is a bit late, and would like to emphasize that I only have a layman’s understanding. Nevertheless, regarding your example, I think the point was that the slippery slope argument CAN certainly become true, but acknowledging it as a possibility and using it as a fact to support your claim are two very different things. The best example I can think of is this: to justify getting involved in Vietnam, the US claimed that if they didn’t prevent the spread of a communist government to Vietnam, communism would spread to the surrounding regions and greatly increase the power of communism. During the time of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, this was a terrifying proposition for many Americans who feared communism and a nuclear war, and promoted support for the Vietnam war. However, despite there being no definite proof that the establishment of communism in Vietnam would lead to a domino effect (THAT IM AWARE OF, I COULD BE WRONG), it was presented as a fact of life: the us had to intervene, or communism would expand. That’s just my two sense, 4 years late, but if you end up reading this I hope it helps. There’s a fascinating Ted talk on the subject, just look up something along the lines of “Elizabeth Cox slippery slope fallacy Ted talk”. And regarding your first question, no, I don’t think it is. Identifying the flawed thinking of others isn’t flawed in itself, so it’s not a fallacy. At least I wouldn’t regard it as such.
Yeah.... For 'Slippery Slope', I'm not getting the Declaration of Independence example at all. Not to mention the fact that history is RIFE with examples of the slippery slope actually coming to pass, as may have been warned. I mean, TECHNICALLY, and by the rules of sound debate, yes, slippery slope is a rhetorical fallacy, but...
The "slippery slope fallacy" is not a fallacy. It's a chain hypothetical syllogism. One may reject the premises, but a fallacy is not a valid argument that contains an untrue premise. A fallacy is an argument that is invalid. Here is the form of the so called slippery slope. See if you can spot the error of reasoning. If A, then B. If B, then C. And if C, then D. Therefore, if A then D. If you don't see the error, it's because there isn't one. You may reject the premises (but you can do that with any valid argument) but if you accept the premises as true, you must also accept the conclusion as true. Thanks.
All creationists, flat earthers, and many others who believe in psuedoscientific claptrap, or superstitious nonsense should watch this video and learn from it.
Well slippery slope is when there is no evidence to support the slope. A prediction like climate change is not a slippery slope because side effects like extinctions are supported by evidence.
Let's come up with our own logical fallacy. I will start. *Argumentum verterunt exterorum* *The aliens argument* This is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone makes the conclusion of aliens (extra-terrestrials) when they don't understand their opponent's argument. It typically takes the form of an argument from incredulity and an argument from ignorance, but with a second conclusion. In some cases, it can even be a red herring (irrelevant topic), ignorantio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion), or non sequitur (does not logically follow). *Logical form* _I don't understand how argument A is true._ _Therefore, argument A is false._ _Therefore, aliens._ Example: I don't understand how the big bang theory is true. Therefore, the big bang theory is false. Therefore, aliens.
Complex Question gives two obvious choices designed to ensnare the recipient. An example would be the old elementary school saying of, "Does your mom know you are gay?" The two obvious answers, yes and no both lead to a similar outcome of you being gay, even if you aren't. A good video with more examples would be the "So, What You Are Saying" video by Counter Arguments. Red Herring is a question or statement used to pivot away and dodge from a question, otherwise known as distracting (like sleight of hand in magic). Once again I will bring up a video by Counter Arguments titled "Not Answering the Question". Both videos clearly demonstrate how obvious these are but how effective they can be if done right.
Calling someone a deluded hipster can be a description, not just an insult, if it does describe someone it's a case that looks like the fallacy ad hominem but really isn't.
No, calling someone a deluded hipster it's not a ad hominem in itself, it's just being rude. Saying that what that person is wrong because it's a deluded hipster (without any other arguments for your side) it's an ad hominem (even if that person suffers from delusion and it's an hipster) . If you say that person X is a deluded hipster and what he's saying is wrong and you present evidence that he's wrong, it's not an ad hominem.
8:20 Guns are for maiming people and knives are for carrots -> hasty generalization, strawman, Texas sharpshooter, and begging the question. Good job at creating an example with at least 4 fallacies built in!
Making a logical fallacy to explain a logical fallacy: Guns can be used to kill, therefore their purpose is to kill. Knives can be used to cut carrots, therefore their purpose is to cut carrots. Logical fallacy debunked: Most guns are not used to kill people, and most gun owners claim they have them for self defense. Many people shoot recreationally, for hunting, and for other training purposes. Millions of cops use guns daily, but kill fewer than a thousand people per year. Therefore the primary use of all firearms is not to kill. Many knives are designed as fighting tools, and blades were the primary tool of warriors for centuries before the advent of firearms. Most states have laws against certain knives, or the carrying of blades of a certain type. Therefore just because most knives can be used to cut carrots, the primary use of all knives cannot be said to be for cutting carrots. They certainly can be described as weapons, and certain jurisdictions actually have banned the carrying and/or possession of knives.
And if you have not notice the video do not argue that we should ban weapons just said that made them analogous to knives is a fallacy ...that is why the video said that a non fallacious argument is to involve the second amendment.
Faulty reasoning, knives are not just designed to cut carrots, there are military knives, daggers, stilettos, etc. Some guns are designed chiefly for hunting game. Knives and guns share a fundamental similarity - they are both benign objects that are dangerous when used to commit violent acts. And saying marijuana is a gateway drug is not the same as saying that legalizing marijuana will suddenly cause a nation of heroin addicts. Talk about your false dichotomies / straw man arguments. Good video but somewhat ruined by what seems to be a political agenda.
Hello Tricornes One, Thanks for the critique! Let me respond. The main purposes for gun and knife use are, indeed, fundamentally different. While your claim is partly correct, it does nothing to damage the argument presented in the video. The "nation of heroin addicts" is actually an argument gateway proponents make, so it's their logical fallacy, not mine. I was simply underscoring the point. I'd also encourage you to carefully review the entire video again to see that I made it as objective as possible given time constraints to show how anyone, regardless of ideological agenda, can fall prey to the logical fallacy trap. In this regard, I think I succeeded. Still, I'm glad you generally liked the presentation. Best, Eric
@@TibiConstantine that's a dumb advise. You're supposed to fix and correct things. Yet you basically would let misconceptions and fallacies spread. Just look the other way and avoid them. What a dumb way to go about this. You aren't much of value to society.
@@andreyromashchenko8967 well we've discovered your fallacy: ad hominem 🤣I am sure you bring a colossal amount of value to society my friend, especially on social media. You represent a monolith of virtue and the last bastion of political correctness. I tip my hat to you sir.
@@TibiConstantine you expressed your approach of avoiding problems and I told you what you deserved to hear. These logic rules are collected to better the society. You fail to see the structure this is supposed to serve. Avoiding and not correcting what's wrong -- defeats the whole purpose of "Logical Fallacies". And that's exactly what my main comment is about. You are not supposed to just claim that you're right and someone is wrong (like you tried to do), you are supposed to solve the misunderstanding. You seriously fail on that. And you provided no arguments, for me to avoid thru targeting you. "Ad Hominem" isn't possible, you can't simply throw it left and right before you even provide an actual argument.
Many logical fallacies take a doctorate degree to understand. Often they are thrown about without the accuser really knowing when it applies and when it doesn't. Now the one that I've yet earned a doctorate on :) and am unsure about is the Slippery Slope fallacy. On one hand I can see that saying something worse will happen just because of another event does not lead to a conclusion that something worse WILL happen. On the other hand if we start from an absolute and then transgress it, i don't see the why it would be illogical to conclude that once one exception is made, more exceptions will eventually be found and the absolute nature of the starting point will be destroyed.
I agree entirely. I think it's a mislabelling to call this argument a fallacy. Just as with analogies, slippery slope arguments are about probable outcomes, not certain ones, so they are not based on logic. My feeling is that those who dismiss them as fallacies are making a category error in mistaking them for logical propositions in the first place.
@@Gottenhimfella Well, "probable" arguments are still logical arguments they just don't work with certainties. They are called inductive arguments. Maybe the problem is that they treat slippery slope arguments as deductive logical arguments when they aren't and therefore consider them fallacious.
@@blusheep2 Excellent point. I had overlooked the distinction, and the fact that inductive reasoning still qualifies as logic. Thanks for putting me straight!
It is not well said about "begging the question" - "not talking about facts" People should be more sceptical to facts that can not be true, couse all senses can show negative information
Hi Jason, An exegetical fallacy happens when someone misunderstands, misuses, or misapplies the original language from a text. This happens quite a bit. The meaning of words often changes over time, and translations can be slippery. I hope this helps. Best, Eric
Rod Devere I quoted the bibles slavery verse and was accused of an exegetical Fallacy. But I didn't misinterpret the original text. Instead I quoted the king James Bible word for word right?
Ad hominem, Hasty generalization, False dichotomy, Begging the question, Faulty analogy, Slippery slope, Relativist fallacy, Non sequitur, The Complex Question Fallacy, Circular reasoning, The Red herring, Appeal to fear, Appeal to authority, The Bandwagon...
Is the statement “There is no such thing as a good cop.” a hasty generalization? Because the logic to that statement is “Even if the cop is good, the laws that they are forced to practice and force others to practice, are prejudiced, then that makes the good cop an automatic bad cop.”
To be fair, arguments that atheists and agnostic atheists use can be incredibly fallacious as well. "Every religious argument" is also a huge generalization and not all are fallacious. Not all religious people are intellectually inferior. Besides, let's consider the fallacy of fallacy: just because an argument is fallacious it doesn't automatically mean it's false. Just a kind suggestion, for more honest judgement!
4:08 'All things happen for a reason' is a bad example and it blows out determinism, karma, cause and effect (I.e. much of 'science') and probably more concepts that have lots of evidence going for them. at 6:10 For the false dichotomy, 'love it or leave it' is an good example so why add your opinion to explain why it's a silly statement? The point is those are not are clearly not the only two options for Americans. You didn't need to mention the doves at all and the doves quote doesn't even give two choices so it isn't a false dichotomy, and why throw in your opinion in a video explaining fallacies... 7:17 The media accusing the parents of murder is just them making a descision based off little evidence - there is no begging the question fallacy in that unless they specifically said, 'It is a fact so there is no need for a trial and this should not be questioned because we said so'. 8:33 The point of banning guns is because people are using them to kill other people - it is not that those people are using the guns to kill and maim in general. Gov are not banning guns because they don't want people hunting or shooting 'pest' animals like deer. Knife attacks on people are plentiful, as with guns, so knifes and guns do have a fundamental similarity - knifes are banned on flights and in schools etc. And again your opinion added on at the end is not needed in a video explaining fallacies. 9:00 Slippery slope - saying 'weed is a gateway drug' is not a fallacy and it is very likely true that almost all hard drug users tried weed first. You have to mention the person saying this is arguing that 'weed is a gateway drug therefore decriminalizing it will suddenly produce many hard drug addicts etc.' Adding your 'good argument' for not decriminalising weed is unnecessary and ridiculous - you are saying 'something is harmful, therefore it should be illegal.' Isn't the point about whether more people will smoke weed + use hard drugs if weed was decriminalized? No one is arguing that weed isn't harmful to peoples memories... 13:50 False or misleading claims about some else is not the same as a leading question or loaded question. At the end - 'Shady... dishonest ways of knowing..' I don't think I have ever heard this phrase. What does it even mean? Ways of knowing what? Someone please correct me if I made a mistake. I have watched a few of these videos recently and they all seem to have numerous mistakes. What's going on?!
Sadly, there are quite a few offensive examples in this presentation that I cannot use it in the classroom."sociopaths""do you still beat your wife""Bible"
1:30 Racial slurs? Hardly nobody uses them. On the other hand the most common ad hominem is to call the opponent a racist. 9:22 How can one prove that something would happen? One can just say that it is likely. When you have lived long enough you ave seen how one thing leads to another. Each change we do creates a new normal new changes are evaluated to that normal not to the preceding one. Sure slippery slope can be a fallacy but I say in 90% of the cases it is not.
Guns are designed to kill or maim... False. It is designed to launch a projectile at a high speed with the use of a controlled explosion from the ignition of gunpowder... Knives are designed to cut carrots False. Knives are designed to separate a piece of something from the whole of that something by sliding a sharp edge between the two
The priest example is terrible, that's like saying someone can compete on a professional level in the NBA, NFL and MLB just by getting degrees and doing coursework.
John Murry. LOL. You use a fallacy to debate the "priest Subtle Ad Hominem" argument. Competing in professional sports takes an entirely different skill set than counseling. One is primarily physical and the other intellectual.
your argument of the faulty analogy is, well, faulty. the opinion that guns and knives don;t share fundamental similarities, is.....just your opinion. plenty of knives were most definitely designed to hut kill and maim, you stated your opinion they were designed to chop carrots as fact
@@legionleschyzophrene4929 The bible argument asserts that God has spoken. An objective standard where all things come. If you argue against this then you're left with assuming, assumptions and theories. Ultimately, it's circular reasoning whether really big or small.
@@leek2serious You're assuming the bible is the word of god and that this prove it is the word of god. You're making the circular reasoning. And also, not everything is circular.
Your "faulty analogy" portion of this video is laughable at best and in and of itself is based in logical fallacies, before the gun knives were also used to maim and kill, they are often used for secondary weapons, therefore your opinion of cutting carrots has only partial data.
Guns are designed for killing and maiming, and most knives are designed for cutting and can be used to kill or maim. And without context, they are usually not considered as weapons. There are knives that are designed to kill or maim eg. military knives, which are designed to kill or maim, and those without context can be considered weapons, while guns with or without context, are all weapons.
This video gets so many things wrong. Many people seem to think that all fallacies are logical fallacies. There are actually two kinds of fallacies: formal and informal. Formal fallacies are logical fallacies. Informal fallacies are not logical fallacies. This video defined fallacies as "Logical fallacies are forms of flawed thinking." Ignoring the equivocation here, a fallacy is specifically an argument form in which true premises can lead to a false conclusion. There are many types of bad reasoning that are not erroneous arguments or errors of logic. For example: the confirmation bias, the hostile attribution bias, and the optimistic expectation bias. These are neither argument forms nor logical deductions and thus fall outside the definition of "logical fallacy". The so called "Slippery Slope Fallacy" is not a fallacy. The form of the slippery slope is this: If A, then B. If B, then C, if C, then D. Therefore: if A, then D. This is just a hypothetical syllogism chain. The video claims that it's a fallacy because it lacks evidence, but that doesn't matter. If the premises are, then the conclusion must also be true. If someone makes a slippery slope argument and fails to offer sufficient evidence for the premises, then the appropriate response is to say "Your premises are are unwarranted, therefore your conclusion is unwarranted." It is not appropriate to say "Your premises are unwarranted, therefore your argument form is invalid."
Next, the Ad Hominem is not a formal fallacy, but an informal one, and thus doesn't belong on this list. It is a subset of the genetic fallacy, which attacks the source rather than the claims. However, it's important to note that the fallacy is not in just pointing to problems with the source, but in pointing to irrelevant problems with it. If a witness is testifying in court, it is not fallacious to point out a conflict of interest (i.e. the witnesses is a rival of the defendant), past dishonesty (i.e. perjury, con jobs etc.) the unreliability of a witness' ability to observe (i.e. the witness was under the influence, or suffering from head trauma), or a witness' unreliable memory (i.e. the witness is afflicted with Alzheimer's). The fallacy comes from pointing out irrelevant characteristics of the source (i.e. the witness is ugly, comes from a poor neighborhood, is polygamous, etc.). In short, the Ad Hominem is a flawed method of impeaching a source, by highlighting irrelevant negative characteristics. @1:38 "...this means it's probably not such a great idea to call people tree huggers, teabagger fascists, or deluded hipsters." Objection: non sequitur. While it would be nice if we didn't call each other names, that does not follow from the actual definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy. If someone insults their opponent, but doesn't use it as a basis for dismissing their case, then however rude and immature it may be, it is not fallacious.
Next, The Hasty Generalization fallacy is (again) not a formal (logical) fallacy, but is an informal or statistical fallacy. Additionally, people should be warned that what constitutes "too little data" is subjective.
Next, The Faulty Analogy is not (yet again) a logical fallacy, and therefore shouldn't be on a list of logical fallacies. It is an informal fallacy. Additionally the example provided "If we ban guns, then we might as well ban knives." Is not an analogy at all. An analogy is a comparison that has the form "X is like Y, in that they both are Z". Saying "if we do X, we might as well do Y" is just a rhetorical statement-though one can argue that it implies that X and Y are analogous.
Next, The Relativist Fallacy is not a logical fallacy and therefore shouldn't be on this list. It is the idea that truth isn't universal-which is basically just a premise to other arguments. Also, the example in the video is actually an example of the hasty generalization. If I say to someone "Your morbid obesity is putting your health at risk." And they respond with "Well that might be your truth, but my truth is that I'm a paragon of good health and beauty." That person would be using the relativist fallacy.
Next, the Complex Question Fallacy is not a logical fallacy and should not be on this list. Also, the author of this video wrongly conflated a loaded question with a leading question. A loaded question is one that contains an assumption, and thus any direct answer will admit to that assumption (i.e. the example in the video of "are you still beating your wife?"). However, a leading question is one that tries to encourage a desired answer, rather than an organic response (i.e. instead of asking a witness "What time did you see the defendant at the scene?" the attorney [who's case depends on the sighting being at 1:00 pm] instead asks "Did you see the defendant at 1:00 pm on the day in question?")
How the hell is the idea that everything happens for a reason a superstitious claim? That's about as obvious a claim as you can make, unless you are a deconstructionist.
Most things do happen for a reason, it's just that the reason is out of our control. A better example would be “everything happens because someone caused it”.
I'm not so sure I have faith in "honorable people". They are so few and far between that they appear largely ineffective. It seems far more useful to appeal to a broader audience to accomplish a task; strength in numbers and all.
4:16 you suggest appealing to evidence right after you provide an apologetic view for priests giving marriage advice. That, my friend, makes no sense 😂
But doesn't the Bible prove that it is the word of God within specific verses? Therefore the Bible says so. Of course, what Aquinas does was lead to more discussion on whether it actually *is* in the philosophical sense, and answering that "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible said so" would serve the logical fallacy.
this is what people need to learn not just in college but in high school too. this is very important i believe as many people argue with fallacies.
Fallacious rhetoric is far too effective, as it appears reasonable from a superficial standpoint for most people. We're going to have to sell it to make it happen; otherwise, why would people want to be reasonable and accountable?
Hedgehog3342 ik this is very late but I’m learning fallacies, propaganda, rhetoric, and tropes in my 11th grade literature class so its at least taught at a few schools, or just my school idk
@Austin Martín Hernández You can argue the exact same thing for an atheist. By definition they are religious about the notion that there is no god, despite not being able to prove that claim. Not only that, but you use the term theist, except that just implies someone who believes in a creator, not some superhuman personal savior. There is infinitely more evidence for a creator than none. Notice how everything has somehow been created? Maybe it was Kal El, maybe just a mystic force, but we were created, and that isn't debatable. The difference between me and you is that I admit I don't know, you are the one making a definitive claim with no evidence. My only claim is that something that has been created has to have some type or form of creator.
czcams.com/video/qy1pIXOx_mk/video.html and czcams.com/video/h6zcQA-1_Fw/video.html
@@davidjohnson8655 🤦🙄 Lie down before you hurt yourself. My goodness. For the billionth freaking time, you CANNOT prove a negative claim. And manmade (nonliving) objects and structures we know and have SEEN to be made by humans are not comparable to the natural world. A car does not reproduce, have self-moving processes (such as plate tectonics) or have any type of agency. An animal, for example a human, DOES.
EDIT: Just saw your subscriber list. Wow, no wonder you made such a ridiculous comment. Talk about being a wingnut. Now I know you're not to be taken seriously. Take care.
The narrator's deadpan delivery was unintentional comedic gold. Great video! : ))
Example of logical fallacies with role play
czcams.com/video/5FCD2f5el18/video.html
@jec d Yet you use logic and came up with that conclusion. 😊
It's actually very useful to know of these because, a lot of comedy (esp. satire) use these fallacies to prove a point. In fact, I bet one could short hand an improvised stand up routine with simply a common, well-known subject, and knowledge of logical fallacies.
"Thank you, St. Thomas Aquinas, for being so logical." I'm dead laughing
My professor included this video as part of an assignment and I could not be more grateful. Why is this not taught in high school English?
Thank you I have a test tomorrow and I needed help with False Equivalence and False Dilemma
This was a great video in listing some common logical fallacies. If you study them long enough, you will be able to tell when someone is using them against you, and will be prepared to defend yourself against it.
Excellent video, you presented examples and provided reasons opposing each fallacy which made it all very easy to understand. Thank you!
Very nice overview of logical fallacies.
"Sticking heroin needles in their eyeballs, or eating sheets of acid". That cracked me up. Great video. 👍
Hands down the best explanation of the types of Fallacys with understandable examples on CZcams. The only thing I’m complaining is that there could be more types of fallacy mention and how two fallacys could be similar. E.G Begging The Question vs Circular Reasoning / Red Herring vs Straw Man.
red herring and strawman arent similar at all. red herring is when you throw a random idea into the mix to distract from the argument. strawman is when you make up an argument for the OTHER person that they never said or implied.
idk about circular reasoning and begging the question. those are pretty similar.
i watched it again. begging the question - why read the bible when we already know god isnt real? (we dont know god isnt real and this doesnt address why we shouldnt read the bible)
circular reasoning - we know god is real because it's written by the bible and we know the bible is true because it's the word of god, who is real because it says so in the bible
I don't disagree with Jennifer M, but in an attempt to clarify the categories:
My take is that Begging the question is a subset of a larger category of fallacies called Circular reasoning.
In the subset, the truth of the conclusion is explicitly assumed in one of the premises.
In the larger category, two premises are the mirror image of each other, or in some other way form a recursive loop which seems to justify the conclusion. (At least, to a stupid person)
Similarly, straw man is a subset of a larger category of fallacies called red herring.(I do disagree with the word "random" in Jennifer's definition; the distraction may be carefully chosen for maximum effectiveness, in any red herring argument.)
GREAT presentation! Thank you for sharing on this interesting and important topic. The superstition aspect of the hasty generalization seems to rely too much on momentary consensus. You might have figured out something that no one else had. There may be little to no empirical evidence to support your view. Could that be considered a hasty generalization based on superstition? You say, "Paying attention to empirical evidence leads to rational conclusions." Generally, I agree.
Examples might be Alfred Waegener or Galileo. Although they made arguments based on what they observed, their evidence was dismissed because it was not considered empirical evidence when they initially presented it. Later both men were proven correct. I understand that their adversaries were employing their own logical fallacies against them. Still, what's empirical data shifts.
Or, what about proving Julius Caesar is real and the Hindu god Shiva is not? The only empirical evidence I have as to Caesar's factuality is the same I have for Shiva's. I have documents written by people I can't interview and statues of both. Yet, many rationally accept Caesar as fact and Shiva as myth. Could an argument be made for both without falling into Superstition.
Curios on your thoughts.
Hi Ray,
Thanks for your thoughts. I like your observation that "empirical data" can shift. Newton's notion of gravity was certainly reconfigured due to Einstein's relativity. Examples to support your claim are endless, so sure, in various cases, inaccurate perceptions of empirical evidence, or an unwarranted dismissal of a claim due to a lack of credible evidence, could determine a "superstition." Great point. As Socrates said, it's a good idea to question everything. Perceptions and interpretations of reality can change from one generation to the next, or in the blink of an eye.
Your second paragraph discussion is pretty thought-provoking, too. I'd just say that it's easier to respect historical documentation that conforms more closely to the probable likelihood of past events actually happening, especially in relation to the laws of science and other forms of corroborating evidence. I don't know enough about Shiva to state an opinion one way or another, but we have a fair amount to work with regarding historical figures like Caesar although a host of issues need to be considered here, too. Patricians wrote most Roman history, for instance, and they were a slim albeit literate portion of the empire's total population. And as others have said, history is often either translated or invented by the victors.
Best,
Rod
A few comments:
1. Everything DOES happen for a reason - it's just that said reason is most likely mundane and clearly explainable.
2. Guns aren't designed to kill - they are designed to propel a projectile at high speed. The user of said firearm can choose to point it at a non-living target, at nothing in particular, or another living being. Your example mentioned knives, but for some reason you went to the very specific case of a kitchen knife. Would it have been any more reasonable to specifically point to a specially made skeet shooting shotgun as a case for all firearms?
I realize these were examples provided, but it's worth addressing them.
It doesnt matter the use of the object, i could beat some one to death with a lamp but that doesnt make it it's use - the intention of the object is it's purpose. Knives are tools not weapons. Knives are designed to cut things be they ropes, vegetables, meat or intervening vegetation, that isnt to say that bladed weapons dont exist of course. Guns are indeed design to fire a projectile, that is the method of their function not their intention, their primary use is as a weapon to injure and cause death by injury.
I have no problem with guns, but it's ridiculous to say they aren't designed to kill. That was their original, and still their only, practical purpose. If you want to say that guns are only toys, and not tools, then do so. In which case I will tell you there is no reason for someone to have such a toy, just as there is nor reason to have a block of refined uranium to see how fast your Geiger counter will tick.
No guns are designed to kill, they are made to fire a projectile at high speed so they can kill or injure, that's why they were designed not to just shoot some melons for fun
@@joelhenderson3723
Logical fallacy 1: guns were created to kill people, therefore their primary purpose is to kill people.
Debunked: Most guns are not used to kill people, and the primary purpose stated by gun owners is self defense, which rarely involves killing people. Even the millions of cops nationwide who carry guns daily kill fewer than 1000 people per year. The threat of violence can be a powerful deterrent, and often prevents actual violence.
Logical fallacy 2: Guns can be used to kill, therefore there is no practical purpose to have one.
Debunked: Hunting is a practical purpose, as is personal protection and the protection of others. Therefore it is not logical to say there is no practical purpose.
From how I see it, the practical reasons are these:
To harm or kill
To threaten
To collect/display
To entertain
The complex question fallacy...
I always used it as a joke to my friends, asking questions that they cannot answer.
I find it hard to believe that people actually try to seriously get away with that rubbish.
Some people are so good at it and the fallacy is so subtle, that you barely realize what they are doing. You have to stay on guard, especially these days.
'Begging the question' made me think of how Reddit had tried to figure out who the Boston marathon bomber was, ultimately wrongly destroying people's lives in the first place. One positive thing that came of it is that Reddit has not, and likely will not forget about this. I've seen them jump on people who tried following the same path. Its an interesting thing to see, especially considering we don't really see this level of 'lesson learned' anywhere else.
A slippery slope proven right is spotting the foot-in-door technique in retrospect. Timing makes a difference. There have been situations where things went too far and were predicted by those who'd been accused of using this fallacy.
Great lessons. Thanks.
HAHA! Are you a Harvard Professor? Great video!
U just committed a fallacy.
Zybel Anne Araneta Good eye!
@@zybelannearaneta3346 No it isn't. For it to become a fallacy, he has to say something along the lines of “this is a great video *because* you are a Harvard professor”.
He is saying two separate, unrelated things, asking if he is a Harvard professor and saying that this is a great video. Therefore, there are no relation and thus no fallacy.
It would have helped if he used the word “because”, but it's just a comment, who cares about such inconsequential details
I won't listen to this so called profesor. I only answer to God and God alone.
i need to watch this over an over !
Great video! I hope there's a part two on how to get good at recognizing them and how to address it. 😁
you can simply address it by saying it's a deviation from the argument. lay the argument out in logica, like 1 or more premises and a conclusion. if the topic is irrelevant, then it's a fallacy
This is the kind of education every human on the planet needs. Especially to understand their politicians.
Isn't the generalization fallacy itself a false dichotomy fallacy?! When people generalize in a statement they obviously know that not every single member of the group they generalize behaves in a certain way; but they make a statement based on a higher than random associated attribute to the group. For example, Irish people have lighter color hair compared to Italians. Well, we all know there are dark hair Irish. But the statement is not made in absolute, it's a comparison of two generalizations or averages. So, to assume that unless every instance of the issue is correct for the statement not to be a generalization fallacy is itself a false dichotomy or black & white fallacy.
When I brought this up to my English II professor his response was the best way to avoid the Hasty Generalization fallacy was to clarify statements with "generally" or "on average".
I don't understand what you're saying about the HG fallacy being a False Dichotomy fallacy though. Can you give an example?
The Acients educated with a model known as The Trivium, i.e., Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric. This corresponds to contemporary primary school. Their version of university, i.e., The Quadrivium was where Mathematics, Art, Philosophy ( as we understand it), and Natural Philosophy (our concept of Science). This approach was abandoned ages ago, thus I believe thought, discourse, education, public policy is a hot mess.
Now, I'll freely admit that young children need exposure to, and comprehension of the fundamentals of mathematics, science, history, geography, etc., having a highly logical mind, great verbosity, and masterful rhetorical skills in the developmental stage would be of profound value to a young adult whether they went on to formal university or embarked on an auto-didactic (self taught) pursuit of knowledge.
Idk if I agree with ur example of faulty anology. U can argue guns are made to kill or wound but what about bayonets, or pocket knives that are made for self defense or something else. I'm pretty sure butterfly knives weren't made to "cut carrots"
"Everything happens for a reason" is a phrase that can have diverse acceptions. In actual language usage that prase can be interchangeable with "every thing happens for a motive" , even an unknown, insensible or inplausible motive. The word "motive" can also have various acceptions: it is commonly used meanig "personal motivaton"', but "active cause" is also a possible acception.
Dude,
Do you mean "acceptation" or "exception"??
I'm not being a dick, but they're two different words. . .
@@williamf.buckleyjr3227 adding to my previous reply, I found out that "acception" for "accepted or received meaning" is considered obsolete. So excuse me for using an obsolete term, but it was not wrongly used.
I have been looking for you all day.
Excellent video 👍
The problem with this is that it essentially leads people to think that, because an argument CAN be falsely argued as a slippery slope, that there therefore is no such thing as a slippery slope, itself a fallacy of thought. If one admitted the existence of actual slippery slopes, and were able to distinguish between false claims of a necessary logical conclusion and an actual situation where one condition is not possible until a prerequisite condition has first happened to make it so, he might actually begin to truly think, rather than merely pride himself on avoiding certain fallacies while actually falling into others.
However, you have missed a few important and most frequently encountered logical fallacies such as equivocation fallacy, Ad Populum/Vox Populli, Post hoc Ergo Propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this) etc.
It’s kind of concerning that modern culture (as I see it from my view, mustn’t commit another fallacy), seems to encourage irrational thinking.
thank you for sharing on this interesting and important topic.
Excellent. I've published your URL in a guide for students which I am writing at the moment.
Would the faulty analogy example you gave be a good example? Like your saying guns and knives have different uses, guns are made to kill, where knives are meant to cut carrots. I don't think that's right. (Could be wrong) but most guns are made to kill and that's exactly what most knives are also made for. Even if you have to say combat knife. Is that really faulty analogy? Just trying to work this out in my head, I'm not sure.
Hi Bryce,
I'd suggest that most knives are used for utilitarian purposes. For instance, most of the knives in your kitchen are used for culinary purposes.
Best!
Eric
This was very good. It should be a required class in high school and repeated in college.
So is it a slippery slope when a recovering alcoholic says they only have control over the first drink?
Are the slopes sometimes actually slippery in real life?
Nice lesson, this was very informative.
"So, are you still beating your wife?" Why would anyone ask that question? Overall, great video!!!
Ah, the fallacy of *complex question*. It implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.
I call this, "hijacking the conversation." It is meant to take the spotlight off the original topic, which the speaker wishes to avoid, and cause the listener to be distracted from the same and get caught up defending or explaining themselves, rather than addressing the original topic.
Abusers do this frequently.
An obvious exaggeration, but most such questions are more subtle. It's like when a journalist asks a politician if he is a racist. No matter what the answer is, the question itself joins the person with the ideology, and forces the individual to prove a negative. Or a person accused of a crime "Why did you kill that man?", rather than "Did you kill that man?"
This video made me think a lot, therefore it's an excellent video! (I realize what I did lol, don't reply with silliness please)
The slippery slope argument can be perfectly reputable if used correctly. It does not (I think) qualify as a fallacy, because it is an argument about probable outcomes, not certain ones. Fallacies are a concept applicable to logical propositions, which deal in crisp binaries of "true vs false" .
The Second Amendment is a classic case of a slippery slope in operation. The original amendment (as the wording suggests) concerned the security of the nation (against external threats). That amendment has been used for a springboard, over the last four decades, for a completely new set of concerns: the security of individuals (against perceived threats from other individuals) and the security of "the people" against the putative internal threat of a tyrannical government.
But this slippery slope mission creep was not a certain outcome at the time of the amendment, as witness the fact that it took several centuries to get underway. Hence it is not the province of logic.
He really said
"tea-bagger faschist" to represent the ad-hominem
😂😂😂 😂 tf
This video is needed now more than ever
Logical fallacies are common among flat earthers, evolution deniers, absurd conspiracy theorists and science deniers.
never heard this stuff in school
Lance Storm
I have a strong sense that you will be cited lol
@Lance Storm never heard of this stuff in his school, therefore all schools actively goes against critical thinking, and thus the growth of their students, because they are evil.
There, knocked a few out in one go.
Here's MY question as a guy who's honestly trying to learn to argue (not fight) without sounding like a damn fool: isn't calling something a logical fallacy...a logical fallacy, itself??
For instance, the slippery slope. Doesn't the slippery slope argument OFTEN come true??
I acknowledge this is a bit late, and would like to emphasize that I only have a layman’s understanding. Nevertheless, regarding your example, I think the point was that the slippery slope argument CAN certainly become true, but acknowledging it as a possibility and using it as a fact to support your claim are two very different things. The best example I can think of is this: to justify getting involved in Vietnam, the US claimed that if they didn’t prevent the spread of a communist government to Vietnam, communism would spread to the surrounding regions and greatly increase the power of communism. During the time of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, this was a terrifying proposition for many Americans who feared communism and a nuclear war, and promoted support for the Vietnam war. However, despite there being no definite proof that the establishment of communism in Vietnam would lead to a domino effect (THAT IM AWARE OF, I COULD BE WRONG), it was presented as a fact of life: the us had to intervene, or communism would expand. That’s just my two sense, 4 years late, but if you end up reading this I hope it helps. There’s a fascinating Ted talk on the subject, just look up something along the lines of “Elizabeth Cox slippery slope fallacy Ted talk”. And regarding your first question, no, I don’t think it is. Identifying the flawed thinking of others isn’t flawed in itself, so it’s not a fallacy. At least I wouldn’t regard it as such.
Yeah.... For 'Slippery Slope', I'm not getting the Declaration of Independence example at all.
Not to mention the fact that history is RIFE with examples of the slippery slope actually coming to pass, as may have been warned.
I mean, TECHNICALLY, and by the rules of sound debate, yes, slippery slope is a rhetorical fallacy, but...
I know London banned guns, years later they started banning knives. The slippery slope has merit.
The "slippery slope fallacy" is not a fallacy. It's a chain hypothetical syllogism. One may reject the premises, but a fallacy is not a valid argument that contains an untrue premise. A fallacy is an argument that is invalid. Here is the form of the so called slippery slope. See if you can spot the error of reasoning. If A, then B. If B, then C. And if C, then D. Therefore, if A then D. If you don't see the error, it's because there isn't one. You may reject the premises (but you can do that with any valid argument) but if you accept the premises as true, you must also accept the conclusion as true.
Thanks.
All creationists, flat earthers, and many others who believe in psuedoscientific claptrap, or superstitious nonsense should watch this video and learn from it.
I have issue with the slippery slope fallacy. Predictions are a thing, no? It is possible to determine an outcome from afar.
Well slippery slope is when there is no evidence to support the slope.
A prediction like climate change is not a slippery slope because side effects like extinctions are supported by evidence.
thank you so much
Let's come up with our own logical fallacy. I will start.
*Argumentum verterunt exterorum*
*The aliens argument*
This is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone makes the conclusion of aliens (extra-terrestrials)
when they don't understand their opponent's argument. It typically takes the form of an argument from incredulity and an argument from ignorance, but with a second conclusion. In some cases, it can even be a red herring (irrelevant topic), ignorantio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion), or non sequitur (does not logically follow).
*Logical form*
_I don't understand how argument A is true._
_Therefore, argument A is false._
_Therefore, aliens._
Example:
I don't understand how the big bang theory is true.
Therefore, the big bang theory is false.
Therefore, aliens.
LOL
thanks
Thanks 😀
When it came to begging the question I immediately thought of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia.
I wonder how the Complex Question fallacy is different from Red Herring.
Complex Question gives two obvious choices designed to ensnare the recipient. An example would be the old elementary school saying of, "Does your mom know you are gay?" The two obvious answers, yes and no both lead to a similar outcome of you being gay, even if you aren't. A good video with more examples would be the "So, What You Are Saying" video by Counter Arguments. Red Herring is a question or statement used to pivot away and dodge from a question, otherwise known as distracting (like sleight of hand in magic). Once again I will bring up a video by Counter Arguments titled "Not Answering the Question". Both videos clearly demonstrate how obvious these are but how effective they can be if done right.
Calling someone a deluded hipster can be a description, not just an insult, if it does describe someone it's a case that looks like the fallacy ad hominem but really isn't.
No, calling someone a deluded hipster it's not a ad hominem in itself, it's just being rude. Saying that what that person is wrong because it's a deluded hipster (without any other arguments for your side) it's an ad hominem (even if that person suffers from delusion and it's an hipster) . If you say that person X is a deluded hipster and what he's saying is wrong and you present evidence that he's wrong, it's not an ad hominem.
Slippery slope isn’t always a fallacy.
The complex question is also called loaded question
8:20 Guns are for maiming people and knives are for carrots -> hasty generalization, strawman, Texas sharpshooter, and begging the question. Good job at creating an example with at least 4 fallacies built in!
fredocorleone but guns ARE built for killing and maiming.
caveat: I only saw your comment. didn't read the replies.
The virgin dark psychology user vs the Chad logic user
Never heard this in any of my psychology or sociology classes in highschool or college. Must be for a reason.
I learned this in college in English class.
You will hear this in philosophy classes😁
Making a logical fallacy to explain a logical fallacy:
Guns can be used to kill, therefore their purpose is to kill. Knives can be used to cut carrots, therefore their purpose is to cut carrots.
Logical fallacy debunked:
Most guns are not used to kill people, and most gun owners claim they have them for self defense. Many people shoot recreationally, for hunting, and for other training purposes. Millions of cops use guns daily, but kill fewer than a thousand people per year. Therefore the primary use of all firearms is not to kill.
Many knives are designed as fighting tools, and blades were the primary tool of warriors for centuries before the advent of firearms. Most states have laws against certain knives, or the carrying of blades of a certain type. Therefore just because most knives can be used to cut carrots, the primary use of all knives cannot be said to be for cutting carrots. They certainly can be described as weapons, and certain jurisdictions actually have banned the carrying and/or possession of knives.
J J if you heard the video it talks about design not use ... you do not commit a falicy since not thinking clearly is not one.
And if you have not notice the video do not argue that we should ban weapons just said that made them analogous to knives is a fallacy ...that is why the video said that a non fallacious argument is to involve the second amendment.
@@jhespinosa thank you for clearing that up!
Example of logical fallacies with role play
czcams.com/video/5FCD2f5el18/video.html
J J not taking any chances!
Faulty reasoning, knives are not just designed to cut carrots, there are military knives, daggers, stilettos, etc. Some guns are designed chiefly for hunting game. Knives and guns share a fundamental similarity - they are both benign objects that are dangerous when used to commit violent acts.
And saying marijuana is a gateway drug is not the same as saying that legalizing marijuana will suddenly cause a nation of heroin addicts. Talk about your false dichotomies / straw man arguments. Good video but somewhat ruined by what seems to be a political agenda.
Hello Tricornes One,
Thanks for the critique! Let me respond. The main purposes for gun and knife use are, indeed, fundamentally different. While your claim is partly correct, it does nothing to damage the argument presented in the video. The "nation of heroin addicts" is actually an argument gateway proponents make, so it's their logical fallacy, not mine. I was simply underscoring the point. I'd also encourage you to carefully review the entire video again to see that I made it as objective as possible given time constraints to show how anyone, regardless of ideological agenda, can fall prey to the logical fallacy trap. In this regard, I think I succeeded. Still, I'm glad you generally liked the presentation.
Best,
Eric
@@roddevere2975 Eric, I appreciate you spending your time on these comments, but you don't have to sign your comment.
Not clear, need more examples. Besides, would be nice to have an answer on how to deal with those who are guilty of logical fallacies.
avoid them lol.
@@TibiConstantine that's a dumb advise. You're supposed to fix and correct things. Yet you basically would let misconceptions and fallacies spread.
Just look the other way and avoid them. What a dumb way to go about this.
You aren't much of value to society.
@@andreyromashchenko8967 well we've discovered your fallacy: ad hominem 🤣I am sure you bring a colossal amount of value to society my friend, especially on social media. You represent a monolith of virtue and the last bastion of political correctness. I tip my hat to you sir.
@@TibiConstantine you expressed your approach of avoiding problems and I told you what you deserved to hear.
These logic rules are collected to better the society. You fail to see the structure this is supposed to serve. Avoiding and not correcting what's wrong -- defeats the whole purpose of "Logical Fallacies".
And that's exactly what my main comment is about.
You are not supposed to just claim that you're right and someone is wrong (like you tried to do), you are supposed to solve the misunderstanding.
You seriously fail on that.
And you provided no arguments, for me to avoid thru targeting you. "Ad Hominem" isn't possible, you can't simply throw it left and right before you even provide an actual argument.
@@TibiConstantine Do you always scream "ad hominem" if someone dares to disagree, while you never provided any arguments?
Many logical fallacies take a doctorate degree to understand. Often they are thrown about without the accuser really knowing when it applies and when it doesn't. Now the one that I've yet earned a doctorate on :) and am unsure about is the Slippery Slope fallacy. On one hand I can see that saying something worse will happen just because of another event does not lead to a conclusion that something worse WILL happen. On the other hand if we start from an absolute and then transgress it, i don't see the why it would be illogical to conclude that once one exception is made, more exceptions will eventually be found and the absolute nature of the starting point will be destroyed.
I agree entirely. I think it's a mislabelling to call this argument a fallacy. Just as with analogies, slippery slope arguments are about probable outcomes, not certain ones, so they are not based on logic. My feeling is that those who dismiss them as fallacies are making a category error in mistaking them for logical propositions in the first place.
@@Gottenhimfella Well, "probable" arguments are still logical arguments they just don't work with certainties. They are called inductive arguments. Maybe the problem is that they treat slippery slope arguments as deductive logical arguments when they aren't and therefore consider them fallacious.
@@blusheep2 Excellent point. I had overlooked the distinction, and the fact that inductive reasoning still qualifies as logic. Thanks for putting me straight!
Thanks, good for sleepin.
It is not well said about "begging the question" - "not talking about facts" People should be more sceptical to facts that can not be true, couse all senses can show negative information
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME?
What is an exegetical Fallacy?
Hi Jason,
An exegetical fallacy happens when someone misunderstands, misuses, or misapplies the original language from a text. This happens quite a bit. The meaning of words often changes over time, and translations can be slippery. I hope this helps.
Best,
Eric
Rod Devere Thank you very much.
You bet!
Rod Devere I quoted the bibles slavery verse and was accused of an exegetical Fallacy. But I didn't misinterpret the original text. Instead I quoted the king James Bible word for word right?
Rod Devere You are simply awesome.
good man
Ad hominem, Hasty generalization, False dichotomy, Begging the question, Faulty analogy, Slippery slope, Relativist fallacy, Non sequitur, The Complex Question Fallacy, Circular reasoning, The Red herring, Appeal to fear, Appeal to authority, The Bandwagon...
Never said what type of knife.
Funny thing London banned knives and other sharp objects.
What's so bad about logical fallacies?
Is the statement “There is no such thing as a good cop.” a hasty generalization? Because the logic to that statement is “Even if the cop is good, the laws that they are forced to practice and force others to practice, are prejudiced, then that makes the good cop an automatic bad cop.”
Yes, even if the logic stands to reason that still counts as a hasty generalisation
You just eliminated every religious argument for centuries
To be fair, arguments that atheists and agnostic atheists use can be incredibly fallacious as well. "Every religious argument" is also a huge generalization and not all are fallacious. Not all religious people are intellectually inferior. Besides, let's consider the fallacy of fallacy: just because an argument is fallacious it doesn't automatically mean it's false. Just a kind suggestion, for more honest judgement!
bless up
You say sociopath like it is a bad thing.
What are the benefits of being a sociopath for the sociopath and for society?
the harvard professor got hurt
You are wrong saying that Catholic priests hold advanced degrees. I think most have bachelors in theology.
Forgot the straw man.
Red Herring was the Strawman Fallacy
Bam Bamster pls clarify, I’ve looked on dozens of youtube videos and still have a problem distinguishing between the two!
Red herring is to distract the problem at hand, and straw man is to misrepresent a view so that it would be easier to attack.
We can all agree that we're here so we could learn to degrade and miniscule someone the right way.
4:08 'All things happen for a reason' is a bad example and it blows out determinism, karma, cause and effect (I.e. much of 'science') and probably more concepts that have lots of evidence going for them.
at 6:10 For the false dichotomy, 'love it or leave it' is an good example so why add your opinion to explain why it's a silly statement? The point is those are not are clearly not the only two options for Americans. You didn't need to mention the doves at all and the doves quote doesn't even give two choices so it isn't a false dichotomy, and why throw in your opinion in a video explaining fallacies...
7:17 The media accusing the parents of murder is just them making a descision based off little evidence - there is no begging the question fallacy in that unless they specifically said, 'It is a fact so there is no need for a trial and this should not be questioned because we said so'.
8:33 The point of banning guns is because people are using them to kill other people - it is not that those people are using the guns to kill and maim in general. Gov are not banning guns because they don't want people hunting or shooting 'pest' animals like deer. Knife attacks on people are plentiful, as with guns, so knifes and guns do have a fundamental similarity - knifes are banned on flights and in schools etc. And again your opinion added on at the end is not needed in a video explaining fallacies.
9:00 Slippery slope - saying 'weed is a gateway drug' is not a fallacy and it is very likely true that almost all hard drug users tried weed first. You have to mention the person saying this is arguing that 'weed is a gateway drug therefore decriminalizing it will suddenly produce many hard drug addicts etc.' Adding your 'good argument' for not decriminalising weed is unnecessary and ridiculous - you are saying 'something is harmful, therefore it should be illegal.' Isn't the point about whether more people will smoke weed + use hard drugs if weed was decriminalized? No one is arguing that weed isn't harmful to peoples memories...
13:50 False or misleading claims about some else is not the same as a leading question or loaded question.
At the end - 'Shady... dishonest ways of knowing..' I don't think I have ever heard this phrase. What does it even mean? Ways of knowing what?
Someone please correct me if I made a mistake.
I have watched a few of these videos recently and they all seem to have numerous mistakes. What's going on?!
Sadly, there are quite a few offensive examples in this presentation that I cannot use it in the classroom."sociopaths""do you still beat your wife""Bible"
pretty sure that someone who does cancer research on an internationally famous level would be a good doctor
Like he said those practices require different skills and training.
all my homies hate logical fallacies
1:30 Racial slurs? Hardly nobody uses them. On the other hand the most common ad hominem is to call the opponent a racist.
9:22 How can one prove that something would happen? One can just say that it is likely. When you have lived long enough you ave seen how one thing leads to another. Each change we do creates a new normal new changes are evaluated to that normal not to the preceding one. Sure slippery slope can be a fallacy but I say in 90% of the cases it is not.
Guns are designed to kill or maim...
False. It is designed to launch a projectile at a high speed with the use of a controlled explosion from the ignition of gunpowder...
Knives are designed to cut carrots
False. Knives are designed to separate a piece of something from the whole of that something by sliding a sharp edge between the two
If you think the "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy talk to a recovering addict...
The reason that slippery slope is a logical fallacy is that not everyone who tried drugs became an addict.
The priest example is terrible, that's like saying someone can compete on a professional level in the NBA, NFL and MLB just by getting degrees and doing coursework.
John Murry. LOL. You use a fallacy to debate the "priest Subtle Ad Hominem" argument. Competing in professional sports takes an entirely different skill set than counseling. One is primarily physical and the other intellectual.
very few people are logical...to much work!!
1:52 I'm sorry, but for real go to an objective, secular counsellor who doesn't have any imaginary friends.
your argument of the faulty analogy is, well, faulty. the opinion that guns and knives don;t share fundamental similarities, is.....just your opinion. plenty of knives were most definitely designed to hut kill and maim, you stated your opinion they were designed to chop carrots as fact
Listen to a Trump speech or press conference and you'll likely get an example of most these.
Bible circular argument? All reasoning is circular
How so ?
@@legionleschyzophrene4929 The bible argument asserts that God has spoken. An objective standard where all things come. If you argue against this then you're left with assuming, assumptions and theories. Ultimately, it's circular reasoning whether really big or small.
@@leek2serious You're assuming the bible is the word of god and that this prove it is the word of god. You're making the circular reasoning.
And also, not everything is circular.
Your "faulty analogy" portion of this video is laughable at best and in and of itself is based in logical fallacies, before the gun knives were also used to maim and kill, they are often used for secondary weapons, therefore your opinion of cutting carrots has only partial data.
Guns are designed for killing and maiming, and most knives are designed for cutting and can be used to kill or maim. And without context, they are usually not considered as weapons.
There are knives that are designed to kill or maim eg. military knives, which are designed to kill or maim, and those without context can be considered weapons, while guns with or without context, are all weapons.
This video gets so many things wrong. Many people seem to think that all fallacies are logical fallacies. There are actually two kinds of fallacies: formal and informal. Formal fallacies are logical fallacies. Informal fallacies are not logical fallacies. This video defined fallacies as "Logical fallacies are forms of flawed thinking." Ignoring the equivocation here, a fallacy is specifically an argument form in which true premises can lead to a false conclusion. There are many types of bad reasoning that are not erroneous arguments or errors of logic. For example: the confirmation bias, the hostile attribution bias, and the optimistic expectation bias. These are neither argument forms nor logical deductions and thus fall outside the definition of "logical fallacy".
The so called "Slippery Slope Fallacy" is not a fallacy. The form of the slippery slope is this: If A, then B. If B, then C, if C, then D. Therefore: if A, then D. This is just a hypothetical syllogism chain. The video claims that it's a fallacy because it lacks evidence, but that doesn't matter. If the premises are, then the conclusion must also be true. If someone makes a slippery slope argument and fails to offer sufficient evidence for the premises, then the appropriate response is to say "Your premises are are unwarranted, therefore your conclusion is unwarranted." It is not appropriate to say "Your premises are unwarranted, therefore your argument form is invalid."
Next, the Ad Hominem is not a formal fallacy, but an informal one, and thus doesn't belong on this list. It is a subset of the genetic fallacy, which attacks the source rather than the claims. However, it's important to note that the fallacy is not in just pointing to problems with the source, but in pointing to irrelevant problems with it. If a witness is testifying in court, it is not fallacious to point out a conflict of interest (i.e. the witnesses is a rival of the defendant), past dishonesty (i.e. perjury, con jobs etc.) the unreliability of a witness' ability to observe (i.e. the witness was under the influence, or suffering from head trauma), or a witness' unreliable memory (i.e. the witness is afflicted with Alzheimer's). The fallacy comes from pointing out irrelevant characteristics of the source (i.e. the witness is ugly, comes from a poor neighborhood, is polygamous, etc.). In short, the Ad Hominem is a flawed method of impeaching a source, by highlighting irrelevant negative characteristics.
@1:38 "...this means it's probably not such a great idea to call people tree huggers, teabagger fascists, or deluded hipsters." Objection: non sequitur. While it would be nice if we didn't call each other names, that does not follow from the actual definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy. If someone insults their opponent, but doesn't use it as a basis for dismissing their case, then however rude and immature it may be, it is not fallacious.
Next, The Hasty Generalization fallacy is (again) not a formal (logical) fallacy, but is an informal or statistical fallacy. Additionally, people should be warned that what constitutes "too little data" is subjective.
Next, The Faulty Analogy is not (yet again) a logical fallacy, and therefore shouldn't be on a list of logical fallacies. It is an informal fallacy. Additionally the example provided "If we ban guns, then we might as well ban knives." Is not an analogy at all. An analogy is a comparison that has the form "X is like Y, in that they both are Z". Saying "if we do X, we might as well do Y" is just a rhetorical statement-though one can argue that it implies that X and Y are analogous.
Next, The Relativist Fallacy is not a logical fallacy and therefore shouldn't be on this list. It is the idea that truth isn't universal-which is basically just a premise to other arguments. Also, the example in the video is actually an example of the hasty generalization.
If I say to someone "Your morbid obesity is putting your health at risk." And they respond with "Well that might be your truth, but my truth is that I'm a paragon of good health and beauty." That person would be using the relativist fallacy.
Next, the Complex Question Fallacy is not a logical fallacy and should not be on this list. Also, the author of this video wrongly conflated a loaded question with a leading question. A loaded question is one that contains an assumption, and thus any direct answer will admit to that assumption (i.e. the example in the video of "are you still beating your wife?"). However, a leading question is one that tries to encourage a desired answer, rather than an organic response (i.e. instead of asking a witness "What time did you see the defendant at the scene?" the attorney [who's case depends on the sighting being at 1:00 pm] instead asks "Did you see the defendant at 1:00 pm on the day in question?")
How the hell is the idea that everything happens for a reason a superstitious claim? That's about as obvious a claim as you can make, unless you are a deconstructionist.
Most things do happen for a reason, it's just that the reason is out of our control. A better example would be “everything happens because someone caused it”.
Too quick not clear
Speak for yourself
3:19 voice crack
i dont get it lol why are people smart
oh true crime
I'm not so sure I have faith in "honorable people". They are so few and far between that they appear largely ineffective. It seems far more useful to appeal to a broader audience to accomplish a task; strength in numbers and all.
4:16 you suggest appealing to evidence right after you provide an apologetic view for priests giving marriage advice. That, my friend, makes no sense 😂
But doesn't the Bible prove that it is the word of God within specific verses? Therefore the Bible says so. Of course, what Aquinas does was lead to more discussion on whether it actually *is* in the philosophical sense, and answering that "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible said so" would serve the logical fallacy.