Critical Thinking #9: Ad Hominem Fallacy

Рет қаралды 19,909

6 жыл бұрын

→ brilliant.org/criticalthinking
The critical thinking miniseries was made possible by our viewers and listeners. To support more of this type of work, become a member or Patron at www.davidpakman.com/membership and www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow
-Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
-Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
-Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
-Support when you buy cryptocurrency: www.davidpakman.com/coinbase
-Follow David on Twitter: dpakman
-Follow David on Instagram: david.pakman
-Follow us on Steemit: steemit.com/@davidpakman
-Discuss This on Reddit: www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/
-Facebook: davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman.com/gear
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: kzfaq.info
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!

Пікірлер: 86

@Ragitsu 6 жыл бұрын

David...what's the matter with you? If you rule out the ad hominem, there go ninety-five percent of all internet debates!

@therrydicule 6 жыл бұрын

Ragitsu Good. Because 97% of internet debates are useless

@kevinmichael686 6 жыл бұрын

That has validity, but I think we’ll all get by just fine without them.

@therrydicule 6 жыл бұрын

randomflashbacks "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!@

@therrydicule 6 жыл бұрын

randomflashbacks The French missionaries and explorers were coming here as early as the late 1600s?

@aswaney7449 6 жыл бұрын

Hallelujah!

@Seofthwa 6 жыл бұрын

This is one thing that people really should take to heart. Great series by the way David.

@StraightPunkEdge93 6 жыл бұрын

David is literally saving the world

@Aritul 6 жыл бұрын

DumbPunk Lol.

@ttdijkstra 6 жыл бұрын

I like how you exemplify the point by commenting on existing footage.

@ongogablogian3431 6 жыл бұрын

This miniseries isn't getting the attention it deserves. This information is invaluable. Great job David.

@fahadfaisal7855 4 жыл бұрын

It would've been nice if you had also included a clip where CNN/PBS/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/BBC TV hosts used the same Ad Hominem attack you showed in the Fox News clip.

@lidarman2 6 жыл бұрын

Dave, Love this series on critical thinking. I sometimes have trouble identifying the fallacies fast enough to respond but these videos help hone that skill.

@Aritul 6 жыл бұрын

I adore this series.

@kwaksea 5 жыл бұрын

So in short "shooting the messenger" fallacy?

@RandomUploads-ch3bh 5 жыл бұрын

Would this apply to people doing things too? For example, when I play pool with my mates, someone will say I'm s**t before I've even taken the shot

@aleatoric909 5 жыл бұрын

I think that just makes him an asshole lol

@CubeRepublic 6 жыл бұрын

He makes some good points, but I can't take him seriously because he's on KZfaq .

@PastPresented 6 жыл бұрын

I suspect that you're committing a logical fallacy there ...

@hadara69 6 жыл бұрын

Ad Hominem: Because kids like to argue too.

@MrKAHutch 6 жыл бұрын

Just left brilliant, cool website! Great pairing!

@komlat253 4 жыл бұрын

I love David desire to teach critical thinking. This is great .u have to respect a man like this . I was actually wondering about this fallacy.

@docbauk3643 2 жыл бұрын

Holy cow Tucker was incredible in that scene.

@bjrnvindabildtrup9337 5 жыл бұрын

also just interrupt your opponent's defense by laughing her straight in the face, good way to win a debate

@komlat253 4 жыл бұрын

The tucker Carson think was a really good example. Dammn it makes him look so much worse. If thats possible

@Janewomanpower 6 жыл бұрын

So i'm getting to finish watching the critical thinking videos. then i'm gonna star to write up examples. I would like to know if any subscribers would like to weigh in ? share their own examples so we can discuss and learn. open to thoughts and suggestions.

@haza123b4 3 жыл бұрын

*Bit late but I can help you out.*

@verkaserduchkaa 6 жыл бұрын

There is another fallacy - assuming that just because someone used an ad hominem that they are automatically wrong.

@eggboi7846 6 жыл бұрын

Ad hominem ad hominem

@eggboi7846 6 жыл бұрын

The favourite fallacy of KZfaq commenters

@archyneverpicked 6 жыл бұрын

Ad hominception

@Jonathantheweirdo 6 жыл бұрын

Isn't this a fallacy fallacy?

@verkaserduchkaa 6 жыл бұрын

I guess you are referring to this graph: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/shop. I mean yea, you can also call it fallacy fallacy, I prefer meta fallacy.

@ChowMeinChowdown 5 жыл бұрын

A great majority of the time, in order to resolve ad hominems, I turn to the age old tactic of raising my voice and brandishing fist.

@karenzaragoza2079 6 жыл бұрын

Love this guy

@markbrad123 5 жыл бұрын

Excellent

@josephstalin6492 6 жыл бұрын

I love Tucker's face

@WeAreShowboat 4 жыл бұрын

Both sides do this. I think David would get more credibility if he mentioned how “Orange Man Bad” is an ad hominem used all the time to discredit everything Trump says (even the few times he’s right) just because he said it.

@michaelgraff6978 5 жыл бұрын

Wouldn’t the advise to consider the source therefore be a circumstantial ad hominem? Example, if an oil company publishes research that shows climate change is not occurring due to burning petroleum. I know that ample evidence exists to show this research’s claim would be questionable, but to argue to look at the source seems wise, but not sound?

@CaptPatrick01 6 жыл бұрын

From my experience I am pretty sure this is the most common fallacy committed, though do correct me if I am wrong.

@Bolgernow 6 жыл бұрын

Boy, I like these. Super smart. Arm citizens with facts

@chrisjohnson9135 5 жыл бұрын

Extremely well done video. It’s obvious that David is Left leaning with his own cognitive biases (Criticism of Jake shows your bias, but Tucker Carlson is a perfect example of someone using Ad Hom fallacy, etc) yet it doesn’t mean his analysis is incorrect. I admit, it’s hard to put away one’s cognitive biases. I wonder if David can? 🤔

@aleatoric909 5 жыл бұрын

I'm confused as to what your claim is. It is obvious, in as much as David has self professed, is left leaning. As far as I've been able to see, he has the ability to be aware of conscious and subconscious bias. The issue shouldnt be the label you take, but the malleability of your own ideas, if they are not sound. It is possible to put down and anchor of where you are in a sea of philosophies, and still look out for inconsistency in your position, and others at the same time.

@dumpsterfyre278 6 жыл бұрын

The Cognitive Dissonance is real!!

@okaro6595 6 жыл бұрын

I do not see how that is ad hominem. The comment "you are paranoid" relates directly to the argument that was made. A popular ad hominem is to call someone a racist.

@FerroNeoBoron 6 жыл бұрын

The phrase "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you" comes to mind. Being very overly concerned about things in general doesn't make a point less valid.

@SilortheBlade 6 жыл бұрын

It is because you have not argued why AI would be safe. One's paranoia has no bearing on whether or not AI is a danger to humanity. Sort of like how one's feelings have no bearing on whether or not a statement is racist.

@archyneverpicked 6 жыл бұрын

Its attacking the character, calling him paranoid, therefore ad hominem.

@okaro6595 6 жыл бұрын

It is a bad argument but not an ad hominem as it does not attack the person. The argument is that presenting such claims is paranoid. Nowhere does it touch the person but he would say it to anyone presenting such claims.

@whiteflagstoo 6 жыл бұрын

I get what you're saying but it's still easy to explain why an ad hominem loses the argument. By stating "You're paranoid!" intending that a claim is paranoid, you are merely trying to say that you aren't afraid, but that isn't a *reason* to be unafraid, so it doesn't address the claim. That's the problem with the fallacy -- it doesn't matter if the insult is hurtful, or if it's something you would always say.