Yeah i liked it when Star Trek shows a future that can never be attained but should always be aspired to😊

This was before the internet

And quickly resorting to ad hominem arguments which then descend into blatant verbal abuse

@@ericloscheider7433yes because if we all employed current internet tactics to defend our arguments in meatspace, there would likely be a massive surge in demand for oral surgeons specialising in dental reconstruction. The internet has become a vile place. It really wasn’t quite so bad before the www and the arrival of the general public. Not that fights didn’t happen - the term “flame war” originated in that era - but it wasn’t the default outcome of every controversial comment. They were the exception rather than the rule.

Imagine having the moral & intellectual gravitas of Spock. And explaining it in an arrogance free, dispassionate manner. This is not so easy to achieve.

I agree! Thanks for the watch,

More like a course on how to be a successful con man or a car salesman: oh, thats redundant!

Next, we need Geordi explaining engineering. Lesson #1: Pools and poolant leaks. What causes pools to leak, what can we do to prevent poolant leaks and how to stop poolant leaks when they occur. The last thing we need is Captain's personal pool leaking water, flooding the lower decks. 😛

I would love to see these taught in junior high or high schools.

I admit to being distracted by laughing at the two crewmen's reactions

@@stevenwasserman9729 That would be entirely against modern educational goals, which are based on eliminating any foray into logic or reasonable argument strategies and instead using emotion to determine the best course of action and position on current issues.

You are very welcome! Please enjoy!

Agreed. A series about cognitive biases would be great... a subject also rife with source material.

Get to work, there are plenty of tutorials for doing this with AI.

Let's all become Vulcans.

That would be boring. 😂

No. It's "Help Me! SPOOOOOCK!"

The Greeks did this too. They gave each fallacy a woman's name so they could remember them all. Now, why would they choose a woman's name for that? I guess women were just more memorable?

That would be best

😂😂😂 Lik A Baus !!!😎

I never understood why the engineers wore red when it was the colour worn by the equivalent of ordinary servicemen (or expendable schmucks depending on your point of view).

@@zacmumblethunder7466 Engineers in Star Trek are a bit different than what we think of. While all Starfleet engineers are required to understand how to properly design the systems they work on, they spend most of their time performing the manual labor required to maintain them. The red uniforms in the original series were inspired by the engineers and technicians in the US Navy. The colors have been switched up a bit since then but this is already way more than you ever wanted to know about a fictional space military's uniform standards.

@robloggia Not at all, it answered my question perfectly. Thank you. It makes sense now.

Probably from the Science team, looking the device over.

Be careful to keep in mind that its namesake, the motte and bailey, is not a perfect metaphor.

In both cases the belief revision was clarification of an overgeneralization. We should try to avoid them in the first place, of course, but being selfcritical enough to revise specificity is something to be commended, not condemned. Correct me if I'm wrong; I stand to be corrected

Thank you! I'm working on more!

0 / 2 is still 0.

Why thank you. Many have said so.

Captain Spock: "Logic... is the beginning of wisdom..."

Democrats and gun control in a nutshell.

Wait! Aren't you pulling a Motte-and-Bailey right there?

You've pointed out the difficulty I have with calling this dialogue a fallacy. There are really two issues. First, one would have to know that the argument was constructed this way intentionally. Overstating a case is hyperbolic, which could be called fallacious but would be more accurately said to be factually incorrect. If the error is noted and corrected, the statement is no longer flawed. Second, a fallacy is usually regarded as a freestanding statement, not a dialogue. It's easy to see why, for exactly the reason you've pointed out. Errors and refinements are an ordinary part of conversation. The same error would have to be reintroduced later in order for it to become problematic, and a strategy of persuasion of this kind is a form of RHETORIC, not a form of fallacy. It's not made in good faith, perhaps, but we can't look to the intention of the arguer, only to the substance of the argument. In short, an argument may either be fallacious or not. Formal fallacies are evident from their syntax or form. Informal fallacies rely on semantics, in other words knowledge or beliefs about the world. But there's no gray area which develops over the course of a dialogue which we can call a fallacy. That's called a discussion, whether undertaken in good faith or otherwise.

The term was coined by philosopher Nicholas Shackel, who himself objects to calling it a "fallacy".

@@HagenvonEitzen in what sense

The position isn't "bad" just one is a modest idea and the other is more outlandish.

That’s what I thought, too. Neither person actually maintained their original argument; they realized they over stated the case and conceded.

@@wpherigo1 thats the point of the video to highlight the tactic being used.

​@@wpherigo1 yes! I got the same vibes on this

I came down here to the comments to say basically this. I feel like it would have looked more like a motte and bailey had they said something like "well look at it this way" rather than "what I meant to say was". The way it played out definitely looked like a concession of the original point.

Truth!!!

Why thank you. It is probably because I am faithful to the canon and I actually like STAR TREK. ;-)

Glad you are enjoying it. I hope you consider subscribing!

These logic lessons are new, being created in the last several years.

Glad you liked it!

I agree. I haven't watched what is passing for Star Trek since the first episode of STD aired.

Thanks, man.

Thanks!

I am so glad!

Thank you! Glad you appreciated it!

I am pleased that you do!

Yes. I am working on one due in 2024.

Thanks! 😊

Thank you! Cheers!

Yes, because the safety of the motte is still higher than that of the bailey. Now if the threat were an earthquake, you might be safer in the open field. Then the analogy wouldn't hold up.

Well, I've been finding lots about what I've come to half jokingly call "the dark side of the force" - fear and evasive language/logic. I left a link in the community section because youtube doesn't let you post links on posts and replies to videos.

I like it.

There was one where everyone in the full episode commited nothing but fallacy - the one about gaslighting. ;)

@@DeconvertedMan OK thanks. There have been so many! 😂

@@DeconvertedMan I had to go back and look that one up just to be sure I wasn't being gaslighted. ; )

@@mokwella teehee. :D

@@MatthewCaunsfield ;)

The easiest way to give themselves lots of spare time and eliminate all their training and need to do maintenance is to be courtmarshalled, and replaced with highly motivated and well disciplined people. I am sure some are in lower ranks ready to replace them. 😂

Why, thank you!

Here is another logic. If you start with a false premise you can deduce any conclusion.

Great minds... I am currently finishing up a logic lesson about "False Premise."

An impersonation.

They are in the Sciences section, but have training as engineers as well. They were simply helping out in the Engineering section for work experience and to help cross train since they both wish to rise to a captaincy of their own.

@@CHDanhauser Sounds legit

Spock was making the point that they were only walking back their statements to avoid having to defend the more extreme position, which is a motte and bailey fallacy. The implication is that they still subscribe to the more extreme position, they just don't want to defend it.

@@anonygent As I explained, merely walking back your position is _not_ Motte & Bailey. You have to use your opponents agreement with the reasonable position to _then_ somehow claim victory for your more extreme position. Neither of them did this. They basically just said "oh, you are right". They _conceded,_ they did not find a way to claim to have supported their original extreme positions. So, no, it is not "Motte & Bailey"

I've already done the Ad Hominem. Look on my channel.