@MometrixAcademy I do not like the term 'logical fallacy'; it makes it sound like a fallacy that is (somehow) logical. I prefer saying something like 'fallacy-in-the-logic', or 'fallacious logic', or 'flawed logic'.

You just motivated me to include an introduction of logical fallacies before I dive into deductive reasoning and formal proofs in the Geometry classes I teach. This will be easily applicable to current events and give purpose to the skill of deductive reasoning. Thank you!

This is taught in every college I attended.

@@snozcocram where do you live? That's great!

Unknown Dino Went to school in Illinois, Los Angeles and one year in Florida. Studied in New York but never matriculated there.

@@UnknownDino I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I did mean elementary, middle, high school, and college. A requirement; part of the core curriculum. Americans truly need it. And as SnozcoCram mentioned, there's always a section of fallacies covered if one takes Logic I/Logic II at the college level. This is usually only required of Philosophy and Law students. But every student would be better prepared to navigate both their public and private lives as adults with an understanding of what a fallacy is and the familiarity with them to spot them at once. Have a great day all.

@@geeeezussss That is a really really bad thing

I try to point out red herrings (since they're everywhere - no one will stay on topic), and it just gets annoyed. So I go watch KZfaq videos or something.

John Jacobs Whataboutism is also rampant. It’s a way to refute criticism without refuting anything, and it completely redirects the conversation as well.

We are glad the video was helpful. Be sure to check out our website at www.mometrix.com as well.

I learned it in 6th grade in an extremely gifted class. I tried to teach others the fallacies in high school but they just couldn’t/wouldn’t grasp them. They’re not that hard either.

I've been an advocate for a standardized Introductory Philosophy course in primary school for years now.

Should probably wait til highschool, but yes.

Not to mention all of the posts you could have avoided making.....

Ha, yep!!

Or even better, just quit Facebook.

That was hilarious.. totally agree!

😂😂

Why the fuck yall arguing on Facebook

make this true

j but the only issue is that when inherent bias is tought in school still the fallacy fallacy will become extremely overused

GSpotter63 It would also reduce the volume of twitter tweets by 50 pecent.

@GSpotter63. "conned into believing falsehoods". That's a tautology: conned, by definition is believing falsehoods.

@@elrjames7799 Ho yay... Lol Could have chosen my words a little better.... But I am sure the point was communicated just the same.

This begs the question of whether our society actually wants citizens who think logically.

Bandwagon Appeal falasy

you should say "lots of doesnt mean most of"...

@@glutamateglutamate5728 I like that one too. Thanks.

Yes bandwagon/argumentum ad populum. But can also come from an "argument from personal credulity" place. A typical response to said wife is: "Lots of people, in fact almost everybody, used to believe that the earth was flat. That doesn't mean we live on a flat earth". Of course this assumes Mrs Wife isn't a flat earther! :D

@@PianoDentist Not a flat Earther, but if enough people told her it was flat, she would argue with me that is must be. I find that people use the "lots of people agree with me" argument in place of knowledge..

They were for me. Not sure what course but probably English comp or literature and all in latin

​@@grantpiper1223 The subjects of study you mentioned in no way specifically address logical fallacy, or our tendency to lean into it without training. When in math did you learn about logical fallacies? Mathematical and algebraic logic, yes, but not rhetorical logical fallacy. Not being able to recognize logical fallacy and cognitive bias is an underlying problem with our ability to trust and communicate complex ideas and debate one another. Isaac Asimov once said “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”. Whatever we are teaching, its not helping our population to navigate inflammatory promotion of prejudiced information, and arguments based upon the persuasive power of mere confidence. An instructor mentioning logical fallacies is not the same thing as a specific course on cognition. This is also true for exponential numbers. Without training, the average human has great difficulty accurately representing these concepts.

I think we covered this in English Language class but far too briefly to become a skill.

​@@grantpiper1223 The irony. You fall for a logical fallacy trying to explain how you understand them. Teaching logical fallacy's are not on every school curriculum. You writing a wall of words about how your personal experiences with the curriculum resulted in you learning about them secondary to the actual studies, or merely as a part of a greater study, in no way addresses the fact that the direct teaching of logical fallacy's are not in the curriculum. The main fallacy you have fallen for wasn't actually explained in this video, but is most closely related to hasty generalisation. Where you take your own personal experience, then proceed to tell people that they are obviously wrong because you experienced different. That isn't the point, the point is, again, it isn't actually in the fucking curriculum.

@@grantpiper1223 Dude, do you have a disability or something? I never requested that you show me anything, in fact my point was that your personal experiences are an invalid form of argument, which is quite the opposite from asking for even more anecdotes. Also don't apologise, you don't have to be sorry, but if you were half as well educated as you seem to think you are then you'd understand that and instead of sarcastically apologising you would learn from your blatant mistakes and move on.

How many people actually state or imply that specifically though?

@@greghill00 plenty. Whole conspiracy theory movements hinge on the fact that when people don't want to hear their asinine claims it's a "government cover-up"... >_>

_“The people in this audience will probably gang up on me for saying this, but...”_ Sometimes an audience does gang up on someone. Perhaps an example might be a Biden supporter criticising Trump in front of an audience of very loyal Trump supporters or vice versa. The Trump supporters might be saying e.g. "shut up you libtard communist" whilst at the same time you'd be saying "Fake martyr!"

“I’ll bet this video will be banned”, “be sure to check if you’re still subscribed”, “doctors hates her because of her diet”... you’re right

Greg Hll People in the minority or unpopular opinion realm will sometime use this argument to make themselves look like they’re fighting for a better cause when in reality they’re not.

We'll keep that in mind for future videos.

True, but to be honest that one is just so obvious that if you were to have any hope of surviving in a debate/discussion, you would have to be able to recognize that one on your own :P

97% of orators agree with this observation.

There is nothing wrong with appeal to authority if when called on it you can back it up.

There is no logically sound reason to require an argument that amounts to "my position is correct because _x_ agrees with my position". If the information at hand sufficiently "backs" one's claim then all appeal to authority is naturally redundant.

Isn't reductio ad absurdom (AKA. Arguments ad absurdum) a form of argument to prove a line a reasoning logical or illogical by taking it to it's full conclusion? I don't think it's a fallacy.

@@peterhughes3461: It's a fallacy because you're changing the person's argument to a different one which is, itself absurd. E.g. I say "I don't favor tax-funded schools." You say "Oh, so you want kids to stay ignorant?"

@@KutWrite what you are describing is called a straw man argument and it is described in this video.

@@auto1nfanticid3: I can see why you'd say that. I meant to show that the opponent took the first man's position and exaggerated it to the point of absurdity. One could also say it includes the "false choice" fallacy as well. Often the fallacies are mixed, rather than purely one or another.

"Reductio ad absurdum" is reduction to absurdity. It's used in logic to prove a statement and is more commonly known as proof by contradiction. You'd negate the original statement and find a contradiction (or an absurdity), thus proving the original statement true. Not sure there is logical fallacy associated with it, at least not one google can easily find. But I stand to be corrected

Hence Logical Fallacy 11: everyone is entitled their opinion, substantiated or not.

BlueBaron3339, I think that having an opinion falls under freedom of speech.

@@bradster1708 Agreed, Brad, with sensible limitations. It was interesting living in a country - Germany, in my case - where people interpret that basic human right differently. You'd better be able to back up what you say. Oh, you can have your opinion but, like religion, best keep it to yourself. Broadcasting an unfounded opinion is a burden you're imposing on other people. It's still your right but.... 😉

A fallacious argument can still have a conclusion that's true. Look up the fallacy fallacy.

@@BlueBaron3339 A fallacy is an argument based on a false premise. It's not negated if someone uses a fallacy in an argument.

An Amok was originally a Filipino spirit type of thing that parents warned their children about. You'd better be good or the amok will come get you. Then came the Japanese Occupation and the left-behinds. Some of these abandoned soldiers live wild in the jungles for decades and became manifestations of the spirits. They would raid Villages and lay booby traps which is where we' get the verb form to run amok. If there is a book called The amok that is a wonderful read if you can find it. I've read it twice

@@bradmowreader5983 wow interesting etymology!

In mainstream media it is appeal to emotion and false dichotomy

@@bradmowreader5983 That is incredibly interesting.

Appeal to emotion...! Bandwagon??

Thanks. Be sure to check out our website as well at www.mometrix.com!

You're welcome! We also have great study materials on our website at www.mometrix.com.

This comment purports that if 'logical fallacy' information were taught in schools, it would then follow that EVERYONE taught would understand how to have rational, logical discourse with one another. Please expand on how you take into account every school grade and age, the intellectually challenged, emotionally disturbed students and more importantly, that after being taught 'logical fallacies', the guaranteed fact that rational discourse would follow.

You are welcome. We are glad you enjoyed it. Our website has other great study materials as well. It's www.mometrix.com!

Sometimes fallacy helps us understand things that we can't grasp in its entirety. Fallacy can be a crutch until further development of an idea.

@@andrewwhitman3094 "Sometimes fallacy helps us understand things that we can't grasp in its entirety" - how? Can you give an example?

It doesn't need to be an error in logic . It can serve as a tool for deliberate manipulation. There are times where it's hard to clearly see it through even for critical thinking proffesors:). No offence people:)

William Springer decide to delete all of their comments. Bye William....you made a good choice. ;)

That's actually a really good satirical comic formula. Monty Python comes to mind.

true dat

That sounds dangerous..........maybe irrelevant arguments would be better.

A broken clock is correct twice a day

Or: just because you’re paranoid, that doesn’t mean someone isn’t trying to kill you!

Which its not necessarily a fallacy.. you can beg the question without be fallacous, often I find it has to be used when people use antidebate tactics, and are generally intellectually dishonest

One of my pet peeves is when someone says "that begs the question" without referring to something being fallacious then goes on to state a question. When someone does it on TV, I always yell "you mean 'that raises the question'" at the screen. I don't think they hear me.

@@YosemiteOnMyMind Tsk. Shout *louder* David. Honestly, some folk ........

I've also seen false dilemma be called a "black and white" fallacy

Not exactly. The two can certainly overlap; one can beg the question by using circular reasoning, but more commonly, begging the question is a means of issue avoidance

Many thanks! Glad you like our channel!

Agreed

True! The US political environment provides multiple examples on a daily basis.

What I'm ready for now is the coming election season!

watch Mohammed Hijab debates.

Logic taught in schools? Bite your tongue.

@@siggyretburns7523 It's taught in mine. One of my modules links this exact video.

@@e2sxp I was being facetious.

So true. I taught critical thinking at university and most students weren't even aware of the positive and negative versions of this fallacy.

Leprechauns are real because they heave never been proven not to be real.

@@quintas66 Seems logical ...... If you're a theist I mean . If you're not then no not at all .

@Alchemica Blackwood Gee........ That was deep lol.........

@UCLYhhxcJCS0ojyqaOvYVZnw What subject do you think I'm being ignorant about ? Please explain . And you are the one who was attempting to be clever in the first place . But instead it just turned out sounding silly . You asked Yeah , but how do you know the person arguing is actually ignorant ?. That would depend on the argument they're making on the particular subject . Once you know that , you can make an evaluation of the level of ignorance a person might have on the subject . Plus you don't necessarily have to be an expert to spot when someones showing ignorance about a subject . I myself have not claimed to know anything about you from your silly comment . I just sarcastically said it was "deep". You are the one making the text book " argument from ignorance " by claiming to know so much about me from a three word comment you got all butt hurt about . The supposed case you're trying to make has back fired . You should think things through before you write .

I took a course "Introduction to logical discourse" my senior year in engineering school. It was as valuable as half of the engineering courses.

Thanks! Don't forget to check out our website as well at www.mometrix.com!

The point is not to accept an argument just because you FEEL it's right. But for making followers as a leader combining emotional appeal and logical reasoning is better.

Yoo forgot abot Mrongos Honey

"Data is the plural of anecdote" was the original quote

@@plopytop Do you happen to know by whom?

Oh, is data fact?

@@siggyretburns7523 Normally, yes. Interpreting the data is another matter.

@@jns8393 No.its a joke. Database? (is that a base?) Disapoint? (Is this a point?) Etc...is Data fact?

@Steve Hayes Ok, there is a commonly quoted "Slipperly slope" fallacy about "safe injection sites and I present the fallacy first and then the properly constructed argument : A Sippery slope argument against safe injection sites might go like this: - Opening safe injection sites will lead to a catastrophic increase in drug abuse in the neighborhood. - More drug abuse inevitably leads to more crime, especially violent crime. -The neighborhood will be overrun with criminals and fall apart at the seams. This is a slippery slope because its premises and conclusions are too broad and describe inevitability rather than probability Reconstructed: - People addicted to heroin and other injectable drugs are at risk of serious disease from using dirty needles - Many of these same people would prefer to use clean needles and would frequent a "safe injection site". - Safe injection sites have been linked in studies to increased drug use in the affected neighborhoods - Crime statistics show that the need to support a highly additive drug addition has been causally linked as to a rise in theft related crimes. -Many theft related crimes are crimes of opportunity - Increasing the number of drug addicted people frequenting an area increases the chance that some of them will commit (Theft) crimes of opportunity to support their habit. - Establishing a "safe injection site" in a neighborhood will increase the risk of theft related crime in that neighborhood.

@Steve Hayes Slippery slope fallacy happens when the logic does not follow. The data is a separate issue. You can accept the logic of the argument without accepting a premise or multiple premises and it is still a logically valid argument. The question then is if it is true. For example the Kalam Cosmological argument states 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) the universe began to exist. Thus the universe had a cause. This is logically sound even if you don't accept the premise(s).

Moose no when the logic does not follow its a “non sequitur”

it is now

Probably either "Guilt by Association" or "The Bandwagon" Fallacy

Nevermind, it's actually "Argumentum ad Populum"

Gosh, I hear this one all the time and I go nuts every time I hear it

We are so glad you enjoyed it! We also have great study materials for specific exams on our website at www.mometrix.com!

Yes, those were informal fallacies Another logical fallacy; If x, then y. y. Therefore x.

I hear fallacies from people of all ages and educational backgrounds. It isn't a "college kids today" issue so much as "people" issue.

Do you suggest "college kids" in the past knew logical fallacies and avoid using them?

We'll keep that in mind for future projects. Be sure to check out our website at www.mometrix.com.

fallacy of composition -- "the error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole." I had to look that up. Thanks. Yes our minds love to categorize and recognize patterns.

Any good speaker will _”appeal to emotion”,_ the important thing is that your position does not depend on that alone.

Committing logical fallacies isn’t morally wrong, it’s just logically fallacious. Meaning, it simply doesn’t make your logical argument any stronger. For example, I could say “most death’s from car crashes are from drunk drivers” and cite relevant statistics. That would be a solid argument if backed up by the data. But if I then add pictures of people crying and yell out “think of the children you could murder if you drive drunk!!!” that may appeal to emotion, but it says nothing about the data or relevant conclusions from the data.

my soon to be ex lives by this

I totally disagree with that because...just because.

Logic is a condition for a good argument.

Logic is the base for a good argument. Why do you believe that?

​@@weirdstories5400Don't worry - I think it's satire. They don't believe logic isn't necessary, they just know that sadly the most convincing or "good" arguments aren't always the ones with sound logic behind them.

Thank you. We also have great study materials available on our website at www.mometrix.com.

Yep, it should also be made part of the user terms agreement and mandatory viewing before opening a Social Media Account.

On everywhere really.

We are glad you enjoyed the video. Don't forget to check out our website at www.mometrix.com as well.

My problem is no matter how much I look up, there are news on my side, and the other side, and they both made sense to me

Breakman Radio This comment is hilariously true. You should add that most of their arguments contain some type of logical fallacy. When that fails they resort to pejoratives.

You're quite welcome!

@Crazy Jesse Weird flex, but ok.

I prefer to use the names that are used in Philosophy considering that Philosophy is where logic is studied the most in depth... but even in Philosophy there are some differences in what they're named.

Sounds like someone needs a midlife crisis...

You're welcome! We also have great study materials on our website at www.mometrix.com.

@@TheBibleDefenders "yuge" - lol i hope that typo is intentional...if so, very funny (because that's how he says it). Ok, but i just find it hard to understand how you could understand what is real truth and logic (and why it's important), and yet be a fan of such a huge liar...i mean, i could provide you example after example of camera footage of him lying and contradicting both himself and the truth (like when he told in the July ABC interview he would have unconditional negotiations with Iran, and then contradicted himself again a few weeks later after Iran had seized a UK ship and said, on camera "i never said unconditional", for one example).

@@williamspringer9447 Thanks.

Thanks, we are glad you enjoyed it! Be sure to check out our website as well at www.mometrix.com.

Haipeng Li which means what?

I see.

We are glad you enjoyed the video. Be sure to check out our website as well at www.mometrix.com.

Rephrase that in *ENGLISH*

You're welcome. We are glad you enjoyed the video.

Usually I don’t get even that courtesy. I just get told what I think based on slippery-slope nightmares someone has had implanted in their brains from Fox News.

@@thanes69 Oddly, while slippery-slope is a bad argument, reality often conforms to it.

Are you saying that you can predict the future!?

@@Syl2154 No.

@@dagnytaggart5955 We ended up in a paradox

I actually don't know and this should be taught in schools. I think we all fall into these traps from time to time and it would help us greatly if we understood what the trap actually is.

@@jackkraken3888 totally agreed. I guess it would need prepared teachers to properly teaching logic. I guess nowadays teachers are not so interested in proper education, and that’s very sad

Thanks. We also have great products on our website at www.mometrix.com.

We are glad you enjoyed the video. Be sure to check out our website as well at www.mometrix.com.

So thats the Slippery slope Slippery slope fallacy?

@@billgross176 :D

...and they use logic to convince you that logic is invalid.

Josef K is that statement logical?

​@Josef K So the syllogisms so frequently used in logic cant be proven to exist?

@Josef K I think its a fair point since knowledge comes through the senses. However deduction is necessarily a part of the scientific process. Induction may be used more frequently in science but many of the bigger theories such as the theory of relativity, came about through deduction.