I cried when you spoke about relativity fallacy. I am a 26 year old living in Jamaica and I don't think i have ever met another person who believes in objective reality. Every debate devolves into "everything is perspective so i can't be wrong." I have never felt so validated by a youtube video in my life. Thank you.

My ex-girlfriend is the devil because I've never seen the devil and her in the same room.

I have free will because I have no other choice.

I enjoyed your video: there were good examples, some silly, some from real life. I also liked the fact that you focused it on having productive discussions, not winning arguments.

Amazing that one 52 minute training could solve so many issues in the world. People struggle so hard to think rationally.

You have a way with words, I am never bored watching your videos.

Thank you for posting these videos - greatly indebted to you!

This guy is a gem. If people were more interested in philosophical topics like these, the world would've been a better place

This is excellent content. Thanks a lot !

Awesome. Ive heard the term logical fallacy before and things like strawman or red herring. But didn't know it was its own thing. The other day in English class we discussed logical fallacies, so looked this up to learn more. God bless you

Thanks, especially for not having music in the background. Very nice to use realistic, everyday examples.

Thank you so much for uploading this videos!

Interesting stuff !! This is great

I have a great example of a slippery slope fallacy. Years ago I worked at a company that always had a rush of work on the first and last weeks of the month with the middle weeks being very slow. I would always work overtime when we were busy and then take comp time in the middle of the month. My manager called me into the office one day and told me he could give me any more comp time. His reasoning was that, because he could never deny me comp time (because I worked it around the companies schedule to the company's benefit), he couldn't deny anyone else's comp time requests, even on the heavy weeks of the month. Well, okay. Maybe it's less a fallacy than it was him being a crappy, incompetent manager. LOL

Awesome video, thanks.

thanks for your explanation it was easy to follow and clear :)

Thanks very much it helped me more in studying of Fallacy

really good - but would be great to fix the sound! Audacity is free and can remove mic static and pops easily with filter - worth doing if you want more people to listen to clip - its great info but is hard to focus. Anyway thanks again I really enjoy learning more :) and appreciate the time you have taken to share your knowledge :)

The appeal ad populum is the fallacy that really gets on my nerves the most, because if you say something that most people would disagree with, or that goes against conventional wisdom, people tend to think you think you know better than everyone else.

thank you so much.wonderful stuff

Very helpful for my apologetics video!

Just found your channel. Im binge watching your vids.

Like this guy's info and explanations, but I can't stop getting South Park images in my head 'mmmkayyy' lol

thank you so much for helping me on my midterm 💖💖

Now I'm addicted to watching fallacy videos Yt brings interesting things to us 😂

I like how you included examples about eating animals. It really is a good thing to use because it’s something people in society do that people defend with a crap ton of fallacies.

Also, thanks for all the help on my last semester of undergrad for philosophy.

Got pretty enlightened when I realised 99% of language is a fallacy.

Thanks so much. This is great!

I was brought here by reading arguments on KZfaq about Greta the climate activist. I'm fascinated by phycology and I've always seen myself as logically astute. I was struggling to comprehend the logical reasoning of people who hate on a 16 year old girl that's fighting for a sustainable future. I remembered the term 'confirmation bias'. Haters use it so much. I'm seeing these logical fallacies crop up in arguments and I note that I've often been guilty of these without realising it. I'll deffo go through your vids my man, you've given me an insightful new source of information. Much appreciated.

Great vid

Excellent! I subbed

Appeal to nature - X is good because it’s natural, or Y is bad because it is unnatural. Black and white thinking - illegitimately limiting the alternatives available. Ad hominem - addressing the person or person’s circumstances instead of the argument. Genetic - we dismiss an idea or argument because of its origin or history. Slippery slope - A will lead to B, and B will lead to undesirable C, so we shouldn’t do A (no good reason why A will lead to B, which will lead to C). Argument from ignorance - no one has proven A is false, so A is true. Cherry-picking - we only see data in support of our ideas and ignore or suppress or do not see data that might disconfirm our ideas. Appeal to emotion and people - we appeal to emotion alone or argue conclusion must be true or good because most people believe it is true or good. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - happened before B so A caused B. Straw man - misrepresent an argument to more easily defeat it. Relativist - we illegitimately argue nobody is incorrect on objective issues, X is true for me and false for you then we are both correct. Absolutism - we make no exceptions for rules that have exceptions. Begging the question/circulating reasoning - we assume what we are trying to prove, the conclusion is stated or assumed in the premises. Equivocation - we shift the meaning of a word in an argument. Hasty generalization - we illegitimately generalize from a nonrepresentative sample. Composition - we invalidly infer the quality of the whole from the quality of the parts. Division - we invalidly infer the qualities of the parts from the qualities of the whole. Lottery - we invalidly infer X must be designed because X is so improbable. Appeal to dubious/inappropriate authority - appealing to someone who is not an authority or with whom other authorities disagree. Red herring - we change the subject or give an irrelevant response to distract. Playing god - we argue that we should not intervene in the “natural” course of events because intervening would be playing god. Nonsequitur - the conclusion does not follow the events of the evidence/premises.

it is informative,stay connected

the laugh ..makes me laugh :D really awesome vids

Really nice video, I greatly enjoyed it! Understanding ways to discuss information is essential. -R

Bodies of standing water do not naturally hold and display convexity or conform to the exterior of shapes. Opposing pressure systems do not co exist adjacent to one another while maintaining their respective properties without a barrier of separation between them.

WONDERFUL. Is there a slideshow for this?

I realize I probably won't get answer from OP, but on your example about red herring and not charging by ethics. I'm curious how we conclude something is inherently ethical enough to negate noting someone else would overcharge would be a red herring.

Would the appeal to nature also be a no true scotsman fallacy as you need to define natural before you start debating with your interlocketer?

Hi ! I love your informative videos. How can I get a copy of your book. Thanks !

(26:42) X either exists or it doesn't: would "X used to exist" fall under the category of "X does not exist," or does "X does not exist" imply that it never did exist?

Judge: Your finger prints were found on this gun that was used to kill the victim Me: Yea, but there's a chance that someone has the exact same finger prints as me Judge: There's a 1 in 28347120768203402876087203489790283798759832715198237987192870984712398 chance that it wasn't you, so it was definitely you Me: First of all, that's a lottery fallacy

In the division fallacy i think pizza is a somewhat of a paradox.

thanks

Sophists seem to like relativist fallacy; it seems to be one of the cornerstones.

"If you are careful, you will avoid making false arguments" There is a difference between "This is how you avoid it" and "This will increase your chances of avoiding it"

Was your logic book finally published?

Brain is physical but mind is a function of a soul. Dead body has a brain but not a soul. The issue with loaded question comes here if one is still looking for physical explanation for an existance of a soul.

The term "Halo Effect" is given to the concept of appealing to authority. 42:03 Better stated, the Halo Effect is the cause of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy

False causation I remember from a news broadcast years ago:- there's been an AIDS epidemic in the city, which was of course caused by...poverty. Thanks for this video - appreciated...

Identical twins are effectively clones.

♥

Yuval Harari's counter to the appeal to nature: Anything that happens is natural. Society has never stopped people from running at the speed of light, or from photosynthesising.

Hi, with the Ad hominem fallacy. Even though you said it is useful the jury to know the character of the person on trial and I get that they sometimes don't have any other choice, doesn't it still mean the jury is committing a fallacy? hence wrong logically?

Bob's lottery ticket assumes a lottery ; a causal chance of an effect (the lottery, together with the ticket becomes the cause of 'something happening'-Bob's million-to-one win). In the case of the Universe, where the scientific evidence points to a beginning ex nihilo, there is no chance cause. So I believe it would be fallacious to argue similarly.

A case can be made for using any of the arguments. If someone contradicts himself frequently it may be valid to accept that he has a problem with other unrelated things. If an animal is doing things that are not natural for that animal, a bird not flying from danger that indicates a problem. Why they are called falaxces I don't know. Nothing wrong with being critical of them but sometimes they are good. Many of our arguments boil down to opinions with a small set of facts that often conform to our bias.

1. Appeal to Nature 2. Black and White 3. Ad Hominem 4. Genetic fallacy 5. Slippery slope 6. Argument from Ignorance 7. Cherry picking 8. Appeal to emotions and Ad Populum 9. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc (correlation doesn't imply causation) 10. Straw man fallacy 11. Relativist Fallacy 12. Absolutism (simple answers for complex questions) 13. Begging question/Circular Reason 14. Equivocation (shift meaning of word) 15. Hasty generalisation 16. Composition (infer quality of whole from parts) 17. Division (infer quality of parts from whole) 18. Lottery Fallacy (designed because improbable) 19. Appeal to inappropriate authority 20. Red Herring (distract) 21. Playing God (don't intervene) 22. Non Sequitur (it doesn't follow)

Enjoying this lecture for the second time. Taking exception for the second time at two points. First being that god either exists or does not. I'll posit that as subjectivity exists, it is an objective reality. Subjectivity isn't uniform among subjects, though. God may exist in one subjective perspective and not the other. Second is inspired by the use of the term "lucky". Luck, itself, is intangible. It is not an acceptable argument for how Bob won the lottery, anymore than "he was meant to", or "he cheated".

I liked your examples on circular reasoning, kinda made my brain lag.

Are you the man from thw viral video "I teach logic motherf'er"? Sounds a lot like him

You know what's interesting, when you talked about needing careful to ensure that we make exceptions for rules that should have exceptions; Allow me to slide into a brief philosophical discussion for a moment. This is why I have a serious problem with laws as they currently stand. Not just specific laws, but the concept of law in general. Now please I am not asserting that we should have no laws at all in society, that we should be a totally lawless, totally chaotic, totally formless society. First of all I don't think any of those have ever existed in human history and I'm not suggesting that we try to create one now. However I do have a problem with what I see in the US as too much law. The very essence of law states that something should always exist or something should never be allowed and anyone who violates this deserves to be punished in some fashion. Am I the only one that has a problem with this? I would certainly agree that a few minimal laws are important to the basic function and well-being in our society but the moment you step beyond that, I feel you start to create problems. Wonder if anyone else here agees. The essential concept of a law is absolutism and I'm not so sure I agree that most rules should be absolute. I can see a legitimate or agreeable exception to almost every law I've ever known in my lifetime, or every policy, or every procedure, and yet because of malicious political agendas (imo) no exceptions are allowed. I would definitely say on the political spectrum I lean towards left-based minarchism. With few exceptions I always feel that the best government is one that governs least. I believe that with rare exceptions human beings have the right to control themselves and make their own decisions; otherwise why are we here? Are we animals or are we people? Of course, as always, the devil's in the details and I do have my exceptions and of course we need to set aside some usable procedures and basic organization as we already have, but just as a basic governing principle that is where I stand. Just curious if anyone else here has ever felt like this. I literally oppose the concept of law in most, but not all, situations. Laws are absolutes and life is way too complicated and sometimes unfortunate to not produce a situation which in my eyes would either partially or fully justify a certain action that some authority somewhere would claim shouldn't be allowed. How can we choose to govern without allowing for understandable exceptions???

Isn't Hypocrisy a fallacy? I never hear it listed as one. What about the hindsight fallacy, or the lack of media fallacy. Which is when someone argues their opponant doesnt oppose something because they never heard him oppose it in the media. How about the most obvious fallacy of all, Lying. When someone intentionally makes up facts, or over emphasizes selected facts while not mentioning others. ( lying by omission)?

Educated people in Europe always knew the earth is a sphere because Aristotle proved it. There is a whole book on this.

When somebody commits an appeal to ambiguous authority, would it not be committing genetic fallacy to call their statement out as fallacious?

Great list. I would make a few minor changes to your Appeal to Authority fallacy. It's fallacious to present an authority's _opinion_ as if it is a fact. Full Stop. It doesn't matter how properly authoritative that person is, their opinion is still just an opinion. Conversely, if you're citing someone's work, it doesn't matter if they are an authority or not. What matters is they have the evidence to support their conclusions. This is why I try not to appeal to people at all, rather I point to the evidence and appeal to that.

think one of the most overlook fallacies is the fallacy fallacy

So philosophy like the 7 principles of hermeticism are pretty sound The Principle of Polarity embodies the idea that everything is dual, everything has two poles, and everything has its opposite.All manifested things have two sides, two aspects, or two poles. Everything "is" and "isn't" at the same time, all truths are but half truths and every truth is half false, there are two sides to everything, opposites are identical in nature yet different in degree, extremes meet, and all paradoxes may be reconciled.

natural-ness and good/bad are separate measures. no need to combine. morality is subjective judgement. natural is objective reality.

Regarding the examples given for the relativistic Fallacy: There are still much we don't know regarding the reality in which we live in. One of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is quantum superposition which has been demonstrated time and again through the Double Slit Experiment among others. This principle in the quantum world means that particles exist at all different states at the same time. This raises the question of if this phenomenon at the quantum scale affects ordinary objects and if so how. Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment illustrates this problem quite well and there are different proposed solutions given by the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. For instance In the Copenhagen interpretation a system stops being in a state of superposition as soon as an observation has been made. So CONSIDERING ALL IDEAS god can both exist and not exist at the same time, and the table on the other side of the wall can both exist and not exist at the same time and therefor neither example given here are objectively true and all of reality could actually be subjective and observer dependent after all. Anyway, I understand what you are trying to get across and thank you for the great video.

Ironic that the example used for slippery slope fallacy has proven that, in this case, it wasn't fallacious. People are marrying brooms and goats, and it is legal to chop off a child's dork, because he said he liked pink once.

Amazing video. Really great! But please do research on audio. Ever few seconds it’s a bit too loud, and the sounds of you breathing and even spitting is blasted into our eyes ... it makes it hard to focus on the content

In the dream of life, we're not the dreamer.

In cases where we are not sure whether something is a fallacy or not, what do we do? For example: If all parts are physical, is the whole physical? I thought we use 'common sense ' to decide. If we have to use common sense to decide on logical fallacies, why not use common sense directly instead of going through all the trouble of understanding logical fallacies? Did I make a fallacy in assuming black and while picture about use of common sense? All this makes me go mad. I give up thinking for now.

What was the argument for the idea that people 1000 years ago believed the Earth was flat?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have a college degree so I was not exposed to the concept of logical fallacies on school. I am, however, somewhat intellectually curious. I can understand why people who aren't educated fall into the trap of a certain online cult leader. hint: begins with the letter, "Q."

29:57 Consciousness is physical - it’s a process run by our brain much like How your computer’s software is run by the hardware You should verify some of the things you said here as there’s more that you stated were examples but were in fact not

Hello everyone, I'm no one, I just want to discuss. I'm feeling like there is a misunderstanding of relativism or rather an injust treatment. Here is what I mean. Relativism means that every opinions, and every truths are only true within the logic or the moral they come from. Saying what is true for me is false for you, we are both correct isn't relativism at all, and it is a fallacy. Relativism would say : What is true for me is false for you, because we do not share the same concept of what is true relatively to a system of thinking (moral or logic). And also it is pretty easy to understand that morals aren't objective and there are plurals ex: the law of the strongest disagree with the law of the United States, one can beat up a weaker being in the first, but not in the second. But it is slightly harder to see that logics can be plurals, but they are ex1: in math the logic to describe an object in 2D, isn't the same than to describe an object in 5D. ex2 (my fav) : something is either in a state 1 or B, but in quantum physicsics it can be in a state A/B, wich is impossible in algebra. Therfore it is important to know that it exist many system of thinking, that have different logic or morals or concept of truth. And to say one is better than an other, you need a system of thinking, wich means your opinion is relative to this system. Therefore objectivity does not exist following the logic of relativism. Now in a discussion, to decide if someone is wrong and someone is right two people must use the same system of thinking. If the two persons do not use the same the system, they won't be able to decide who is right or wrong but just compare their opinions. Something important note, real life discussions usually uses system of thinking that are not perfectly define, that are moving, and people can shape others with emotions that do not always come from thinking. Relativism isn't super practical to judge opinions, but useful to understand everyone has reasons to believe what they believe, even if they don't know them. Well I wasn't as clear as I wanted, sorry and good day

😊

Winning this negotiation will be easy because they need a deal more than we do.

Analytical claims are the only claim that can have the relativist fallcey

Isn't EVERYTHING natural? What can be found on Earth that is supernatural?

35:10-35:40 Is it wrong to believe that this perfectly explains how the Nielsen Ratings system is premised on a giant _hasty_ _generalization_ fallacy? Because that's always been the takeaway for me.

Broken stoves can't burn your hand.

1. Other animals don't pen, breed, take the mother's young and systmaticly kill other animals as a cycle of life. So enjoy that cow, by all means.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you sit through this video, then Fox News becomes unwatchable

Overall great video. I would comment on the lottery fallacy. The argument from fine tuning is highlighting two features which you did not comment on but is germaine. To illustrate with a lottery example, if winning the lottery happens 1 in 1x10^8 we have a narrow chance event, to which you would agree. But if someone wins the lottery 3 times in a row, one could argue that we have a narrow chance event again, 1 in 1x10^24. But we also have something else. We have the first of two features in this occurrence. First, 3 narrow chance events that are unrelated but now occurring together. And the second feature, that is these narrow events now tied together mean something. It means something that the same person keeps winning in an event that benefits them monetarily and consequences everyone else. After 3 wins by the same person, one is a bit of a fool to think that the lottery is not rigged, that is that some form of intelligence is not coordinating the outcome. Same thing if we play poker for money and I deal my self 20 Royal Flushes in a row. You claim I am cheating and I say well chance things happen. One is pretty naive to accept that. These two features are also in the fine tuning of the universe except the narrowness of the range is far far greater such that the force of gravity 1in1x10^100, or nuclear weak force 1in1x10^100, or cosmological force 1in1x10^60 , or initial entropy within the universe 1in1x10^10^123 etc each on their own are unrelated to one another. And their is a meaning behind this as well. If this wasn't the case, carbon base life could not exist, that is we would not exist. This leads to the high probability that some intelligence is behind the engineering of the universe.

Are all these "appeal to X" fallacies really individual discreet fallacies? They sound like really specific examples of the non sequitur fallacy. For any "appeal to X" fallacy, the fallacy is from the fact that X is either not true, or irrelevant, thus the conclusion doesn't follow.

I know this is pedantic, and I really enjoyed this video, but saying that water is wet is equivalent to saying that fire is burnt. Water is not wet, it is a fluid substance which makes other materials wet as a relation, similar to how fire is not burnt, but is a process whereby other materials are burnt. This isn't meant to be a vain exercise in pedantry; I just think that you shouldn't have used the "wetness of water" in your examples for the Composition/Division Fallacies, especially because wetness *can* be explained by the properties of the parts in question. Better examples would've been: "This wall is made up of bricks, therefore, this wall is a brick"; Or, "My body is made up of cells, therefore, my body is a cell"; Alternatively, "The U.S. is a nation made up of people, therefore, its people are nations."

I may have missed this so ignore if so, but did you never go over ad hoc? You definitely should've.

In your website there is little mistake on 19- is it appeal to inappropriate authority or appeal to authority. Obviously in this video you mean appeal to inappropriate

What is a woman? A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Circular argument fallacy. Great scott! It all makes sense now.

Out of curiosity, are Fallacies primarily bad inferences? I've just recently got around to reading your logic book and wanted to ask this before I go further.

The Gods exist and they say eating cows is morally neutral

people do use so many falacies and simplistic thinking. what is the real reason? mental laziness? or maybe our brain is lazy by nature and we have to force it to think more broadly

_"Try to prove the external world exists without begging the question."_ -- I'm constantly surprised by reality (especially other people's behaviors). A) If what we think of as reality was really just a construct of my mind, why would I be surprised by it? B) I am constantly not only learning new things, but I'm learning about things that I didn't even know I didn't know about. C) I find that I am constantly wrong about things when I'm learning about them. To understand something takes an amount of study time. If reality was just a construct of my mind, it would stand to reason that I wouldn't ever be wrong about anything because my mind would understand it as soon as it created the concept.

One question on black and white thinking. God exists or god dose not exist; doesn't that disregard the possibility god did exist but no longer dose? I understand most god claims immortality is encompassed, but fear tip towing into a no black swan. I understand by that definition the god supposed no longer dose exist so the statement would still be sound. I still fear conviction beyond what is demonstrable materialisticly but in appeals to supernatural knowledge there is simply no way to rule anything out

pierce Morgan does straw man fallacy on purpose

only a sith deals in absolutes