Donations are greatly appreciated and help me survive to make videos: Paypal paypal.me/thin... Patreon www.patreon.com... Bitcoin 1EUDbzzs7fF7q8FucYyc8YybCUMBuefJLh
Everyone should have a basic grasp of Philosophy. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't even care about how to effectively debate or even think rationally. Thanks for the vid.
is not this video itself a form of communicating with other people? is nothing to be gained from the impartial analysis from another, and/or is only personal trial&error to be trusted? sorry to be such a dick...i'll run along now :)
I can’t believe they didn’t reach us about the logical fallacies at elementary school. I only learnt about this a couple years ago otherwise I could have avoided so many pointless conversations throughout the years 😊💕
A system of Intellectual self defense, through an understanding of logical fallacies and critical thinking, should be a foundational component of formal education. However, sharing this knowledge with the general populous would not serve the agendas of the " establishment"
Greetings Stardusk I am Russell " The Reluctant MGTOW" I am STILL wrapping my head around Logical Fallacies! I was 45 years old before I understood rudimentary Trig, so I give myself a break and just review and review in a rote manner until the content begins to sink in! Apart from greeting you, I wanted to say thank you to You and the many other MGTOWs who have helped me to find PEACE in my soul! I no longer cry myself to sleep for want of Love. My mind is now freed up to grasp STEM content! Hazzah! Thanks, MGTOW! ~ Russell
As Einstein said, " most people are intellectually lazy" We live in a culture and time, of tweets, emojis , memes and catch phrases as a substitute for knowledge obtained through deep concentration , sustained focus and difficult thought processes. Therefore, by design, there has been a dumbing down effect, fueled by a doctrine of distraction,. We have been programmed , and hypnotized into just superficially parroting popular propaganda, rather than forming informed opinions based on critical thinking and a deep under standing of issues. In other words, too much sugar, Prozac, television, face book and addiction to drama.. As a result, our attention span has dwindled down significantly. The people who have subscribed to this channel excluded of course,. As Mark Twain said, " Those who do not read are not much better off than those that can't".
This has been interesting to watch, but I am completely frustrated by the reality that this knowledge is useless in arguments with fools. Fools abound and they both don't realize that their attempts at arguments are fallacies and refuse to recognize them as such when they are pointed out. I suppose the solution is only to argue with honorable smart people, but the fools are the ones who need arguing against. Whew! Beam me up, Scotty...
Not only what you say, but "Fools" often inherit the power/business that their relatives built, get sent to the best schools, hire their "schoolmates and friends" and have POWER where you have presuasion. Power Trumps......I made a joke. .....every time.
Dear Thinking Ape, Thank you for this video. It has been a true eye-opener for me. Logic hasn't been my strong suit, and you have given me a path to learning and growing. Appreciate it. My goal now is to become more coherent in my arguments, and avoid the traps of others when I listen to them.Thanx.
Brilliant! Took me back to my Critical Thinking college course years ago. I need to watch more times to sufficiently absorb the contents within. A good starter though.
Please continue. A classical education (and its benefits) has become frighteningly scarce. Visible examples such as yourself are vital to men today. Thank you.
I do believe you should have covered the distinction between formal and informal fallacies first and foremost, my good ape. I believe it is important for people to understand the difference between deduction and induction first, before using these tools. You say that: "It is important that one distinguish that the likelihood that expertise or consensus or consensus among experts is *usually* a sign of validity, and the claim that expertise *necessarily* constitutes validity" People will only understand this vaguely if they don't understand the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. They will know that these tools work, but not *why* they work and how they were made, making it difficult to recognize when they are applicable. It is difficult enough to properly and correctly identify fallacies even when you understand laws of logic, and barely understanding these things makes "fallacy calling" akin to sympathetic magic. That said, a very useful video none the less. Thank you.
Another time perhaps. Going into those distinctions would have forced me to talk about formal semantics and I wanted to keep this relatively short and comprehensible.
I think the book, I had the chance to look at online sample, turned out good and will serves the cause. The cause, to make people aware of logical fallacies, since it isn't common knowledge from my expierence. Maybe to add a chapter on DEDUCTIVE and INDUCTIVE Arguments, Reasoning or Research could be too much for some, especially for some who have problems to comprehend new data that easily because of a mental disorder or other reason or simply get easily overwhelmed by too much new input and then "forget" the whole subject out of frustration. I write this to confirm that your intention/mission goal (project goal, of course fits better) "...to keep it relatively short and comprehensible" is accomplished from my point of view. Because I can remember very good how it was for me to get into this very important material / essential knowledge. Anyone who had a temporarily phase of a mental disorder (no matter if it may be depression, a psychosis or the diagnosis F20.0) or had to struggle with it for years, could benefit very much from it. I don't want to claim that it will help everyone, but in my case it helped me like a lock-pick in a dark basement that is placed in some parallel universe, in which books / liber are forbidden by the supreme ruler Psy-Cho-SIS'thenaton since he knows why liber, library and the word liberation are having their etymological root in the rating word for book (knowledge. (For all that just thought "What delusional yada yada was that?": This is OBVIOUSLY a metaphor to describe the state of mind I expierenced.) And with gaining step by step more understanding of logical fallacies, the trivium method (grammar "Who, what, where and when" --> rhetoric "how" --> logic "why") and of course also understanding of inductive and deductive reasoning etc gave me the ability to spot the fallacious thoughts or the creative ideas, that might be good for a thriller, psycho drama, science fiction or horror novel, but totally destructive if taken as a description of reality without questioning them. Sadly I have not once heard or mentioned in any psychiatry institute or other projects that this kind of knowledge can be that beneficial. I wish I could buy a huge amount of copies of that book and pass it around, but maybe in the future that will be a option. Even though I am a bit confused now, because the premise that the book is only about fallacies and doesn't include data on formal and informal etc has become unstable for me...since Herny Morgan only was writing about this video. Well, none the less, it gave me the change pointed out that it can be very helpful to overcome such strange life events, like a psychosis and other. To overcome the paranoid drenched mindset etc etc Maybe it will help someone...maybe not....my cognitive functions have a temporary malfunction...at the moment.....sleep deficit.....insomnia... IS THE BOOK AVAILABLE AS PAPERBACK? Or only as a ebook version????
A close relative used analogies often as I was growing up, they were very helpful. Whatever the dilemma was, the analogy would remove my personal bias or vested interest, by having a similar example. As a result, I use them now to make points. Often people accuse me of straw-manning. Either my analogy was not good, or they just didn't get the connection. People have commented that it works well in making a point clear. It also feels as if some people, particularly women (non-abstract thinkers) exhibit "personal incredulity" if they don't connect the dots of my analogy. Thanks for the interesting vid.
i don't agree with everything you say, but your points are very interesting and worth considering in all your videos. Very well thought out arguments, really a breath of fresh air in this world.
Miscellaneous issues I have with debate and argumentation: • The rules are designed around two mostly intellectually honest parties who happen to make mistakes. Pointing out fallacies is practically useless in the case of the pigeon shitting all over the chess board. • A habitually dishonest party will attempt to use "ad hominem victim status" against a more upstanding debater and attempt to give himself unlimited passes for his repeated dishonestly and will usually leverage that into constantly shifting goalposts and using other fallacies. At some point enough is enough and the dishonest party must be dismissed. Dismissal is not asserting the claim is incorrect, so it is not an ad hominem. "I will not engage with you due to demonstrated habitual dishonesty on your part" is not an ad hominem and is a necessary "out" to protect oneself from wasting unlimited amounts of time. • "Fallacy campers". Assholes who pick fights and wait for the other party to make a minor mistake and then claim victory when he points out a fallacy (often incorrectly). You don't actually "win" the argument when the other side makes a mistake. That's not how cases are established. • Fallacy extenders. People who make memes and observations into fallacies. For example: "Godwin's Fallacy". This is very often claimed but is not a fallacy. It's merely an observation. Also, Chewbacca Defense. It's a bit from a South Park episode, not an actual fallacy. • Insults = ad hominem. They're not. They're insults. "You are wrong AND an asshole" is different from "You are wrong BECAUSE you are an asshole."
My argument/debate style is a withering application of the 3 Hammers of Persuasion. The Greek _pisteis_ of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Employed with the strategies of Sun Tzu.
I dislike when you think of yourself a "just an average human being" . You are a person most of us look up to ... just sadly most of us are too busy in the life's Hamster wheel to take the time to write to you. You are the reason why most of us can even survive the hamster wheel. "The storm and void" changed my life. It was an affirmation
Sophistical Refutations from the Oragon , part of the corpus Aristotelicum, provides a good framework to start from with regards to critical analysis of ideology. It's free to read online. have a great day
Beautiful subject. :) I contend that one of the future's occupations will be that of professional logician. Our knowledge base will need to be centrally accessible and bringing alternative theories describing phenomena will need to 'hang on the clothesline' along with currently accepted theories. Movement from a theoretical perspective is too jammed up in the constipated methodology of 'peer review'. The presumption is that peer review applies logical analysis to theoretical proposals but more and more evidence is coming to light that it has simply become a systematized way to maintain the status quo. There are far better ways of 'vetting' new ideas and the use of logical argumentation and the exclusion of the use of fallacy would help a lot. It seems obvious to me, without going into why, that our future will be more extreme on the cerebral side and more physical (robotically enhanced labor). Robots will provide the baseline wealth at extremely inexpensive prices - assuming we've recaptured our freedoms by then.
In your example of the Japanese historian (6 min), this is not necessarily fallacious since, although being Japanese would not automatically invalidate all of this person's points about 20th century Korea, it is still relevant. Historical research must always take into account the background and ideological position of any source when evaluating his or her validity.
Here is a short story written long ago and is studied in many college writing classes. It is a perfect story for MGTOW interested in both logical fallacies and the nature of woman. It is only 8 pages. The logic part starts halfway through. Enjoy: Max Shulman: _Love is a Fallacy_ www.filozofia.bme.hu/sites/default/files/love_is_a_fallacy.pdf
Henry Morgan It's a great story for people just getting into logical fallacies as it accurately explains them and is an example of good writing. I am glad someone took me up on reading the story and enjoyed it. It is funny. I have enjoyed our exchanges of logical discourse in the past. --Best Wishes
I disagree with the definition used for agnosticism being the middle ground between theists and atheism. Agnosticism is a lack of knowing. Atheism is a lack of believing. Two very different things, therefore agnosticism can not be the middle ground between theism and atheism. Anyways...still a very informative video thank you for posting and please do not mind my overly critical thinking. :-)
I think sometimes it is difficult to judge if a fallacy has been committed. For example, I might argue as follows: P:1 Smith is a trustworthy historian P:2 Smith published an article claiming that the Anglo-Saxons came from Europe Ergo: The Anglo-Saxons probably came from Europe. This argument could be condemned as an ""appeal to authority". Yet I think it is quite reasonable. Indeed, the scholars' command to cite one's sources is a command to support one's claims with an authority. So I would distinguish between valid appeals to authority and invalid appeals. I think a similar problem arises for other informal fallacies - that is, there are cases where such arguments may fit the fallacy but may be quite reasonable. So there is sometimes an obscure line between good and bad arguments. So to distinguish between a good and a bad argument one needs to apply judgement and not just a set of principles.
Mgtow is evolving into something more philosophical. Understanding that female nature is no better is kind of a given, and the subject matter of Stardusks videos doesn't dwell on the old news, but propels the viewer further into the perennial quest for knowledge
Is there a fallacy for bringing up evolution on Easter as a wise move to igniting conversation about fallacies rather than a debate about evolution and god? Joking aside, if you're taking a straw poll, I'd like to understand fallacies more since I probably only get away with mine because nobody notices or doesn't bring them up. Anyway, good video, thanks
People aware of logical fallacies and cognitive biases can be susceptible to them even more than those who are not due to over-confidence. At least, I read this on Lesswrong dot com, and Yadkowasky cited a paper supporting this.
Sometimes logical fallacies are totally correct. The one that jumped out to me was the slippery slope. Conservatives argued that if you accept, or normalize the gay life style, then what will logically follow is... acceptance of beastiality, incest, and pedophilia among others, all of which have come to fruition. There are scumbags actually touring college campuses arguing for these very things, and not only on campus, but in magazines, online articles, blogs, and here on youtube. The trick with fallacies is being able to think critically, logically, and linearly when encountering a fallacy to come to the most likely conclusion. Which as a mgtow means you probably shouldn't ever listen to a woman that uses fallacies as her argument.
very interesting but several times I had trouble understanding what you were saying. An example: "American soldiers tortured prisoners in Iraq" ->"No true American would do that". What were you saying is the name of this fallacy?
every page has the same picture.... i wish where were diagrams and some headings. would make if much easier to understand. otherwise its a great video. keep up the effort :)
I'm not sure that argument appeal to emotion is necessarily a fallacy. If you say, "We shouldn't do x because it causes all of these terrible things", and then you show pictures of all the terrible things and it makes people feel bad, it's as logical as any moral argument. The only thing that makes a should a should is that there is some state that is not desired and (at least in theory) a state that is which is attainable. When you say that you "should" anything, you're saying that you want to do the thing that leads to a desirable outcome. Showing people the undesirable outcome may make them feel bad about it, but it isn't necessarily illogical. "Do you want this thing to happen?" "It's worth it." "Well, here's what it is. [plays footage of said thing]" Now with more information one can decide on whether or not it's worth it. Which is necessarily emotional. It's the only way to argue against legalizing murder and all other violent crimes anyway.
A very important video for people who want to engage in logical argument. Which means you can't use these when you debate women (which you shouldn't in the first place). One addition I'd make is the fallacy fallacy: if your reasoning is flawed and is pointed out to be, it doesn't mean you're wrong. Eg. you refer to US divorce statistics in a non-US country to reason why you don't want to marry. The US statistics might be said to be irreelevant, because the legal environment is an important aspect, and it's true. However, the point is that the suitable legal environment only enhances the natural instinct of women to use men for their resources and then dump them when they don't find men useful anymore.
you said that how many people believe something to be true has nothing to do with truth. what if i asked you "do most people believe x?" the truth of that question would come directly from how many people believe something to be true
There is a kind of fallacious response that I have been taking note of for many years, it doesn't appear to fit neatly into any category that I have found, and perhaps it doesn't need to be termed anything more than myopic thinking. But it's one of the most common and frustrating phenomena to me, and I just coined a personal term for it a few days ago so I'd like to know what other people here think. As an immediate example I read someone basically calling 'us' (MGTOW or what have you) hypocrites for... complaining I guess about the idea of working to support children and a wife in exchange for their invaluable and dangerous service of procreation. In form it is a strawman of course, but it is predicated on this kind of sleight of hand I think of as the appeal to stupidity, for lack of a better way to put it. The implicit misrepresentation ignores the fact that women/feminists want to have it both ways, not men/MRAs, and our "complaint" is that we have been saddled with the same economic burden and responsibilities without due compensation or representation. They cheated on the deal, not us, and this movement is a response to that. And this is the form of redacting context that virtually every "argument" of Feminism takes, and indeed that the entire body of feminism ideology is built from. I see it even as a distinct mechanism from the standard concept of taking material out of context, which is I think what I've been trying to pin down about it, because it gets to the very essence of dishonest thinking. This impulse of redacting elements of reality, it can be clearly seen in the intellectual misrepresentation of another discrete intellectual expression, but the actual pathology of it is prevalent in most of our persuasions, to ourselves as much as others. Well anyway here is the term that popped into my head a few days ago, and since I think it appropriately describes the character of most of the fallacious argument and even just rhetoric that this general movement is in opposition to - and even more so for MGTOW if we are to successfully maintain the masculine virtue of integrity - I'll ask what people think of: *The castration of context.*
Excellent video. Thank you for pointing out Strawmans CAN be accidental. I think they most often stem from miscommunication. Either the listener misunderstood the speaker, the speaker constructed their thoughts poorly, or both. Though I would also like to point out that some arguments are being accused of being these kind of fallacies when they aren't entirely illegitimate. Like if the ad hominem is that the person in question has frequently been caught repeatedly lying in the past, that is actually a good reason to cast doubt on what they have to say, if not necessarily enough to dismiss it entirely.
Isn't common logical fallacies a tautology? Isn't a fallacy already common, as it describes a certain type of bad argumentation used often enough to make it a fallacy?
Good video, however as criticism, as an outsider I find the political opinions irrelevant and distracting. Without these views presented I think it would reach a farther audience as people will not shut off the video. People are so close minded these days.
There should be the Fallacy fallacy, because over and strict latching to the rules of logical fallacies in conversation. Just because someone uses a fallacy argument, does not entirely mean they are wrong, and given the type of argument, the fallacy could be the best route to further the dialogue, and in some instances, the fallacy can inhibit an otherwise could example. Most fallacies seem reasonable to me, but one that comes to mind is Richard Dawkins Biological Fallacy about religion. Dawkins states that how do you know which truth is divine when the greatest determinant of whether you are going to hell or not (subjective to all religions as they all claim the truth and argue against the next) is where you were born. That is a genetic fallacy, but damn it is true and it reassures the arguer that they have no monopoly over the truth.
Thinking-Ape because Dawkin s states that because of where you are born, family, genetics, that determines what faith they are, or in other words whether they go to heaven with the J-man. In other words, your genetics determine whether you go to heaven or hell in the eyes of a Christian. He was called out on that as a genetic fallacy, but honestly, given the topic of discussion, which is God, you are quite limited on what you can argue because there is truly no evidence for or against. So otherwise if they stuck to using no fallacies, the argument would be very dull (arguments on God never really go anywhere s any ways.).
MrShelterman Are you talking about Richard Dawkins or this girl? I am confused. With respects to the girl, yes, it is a genetic fallacy because knowledge of that subject matter is not restricted to people of native American ancestry. She may or may not have extensive knowledge on the subject but her appearance is irrelevant to the matter.
MrShelterman There is a fallacy fallacy. Pointing out that someone is making a fallacious argument doesn't prove you right or them wrong. Only that they're using bad reasoning.
It should also be noted that combining Fallacies don't make them any more valid. For example, combining Ad Populum and Argument from authority does not improve the validity of an argument. For example, every scientist on the planet before the 20th century firmly believed that the physical laws described by Newton were 100% correct in all cases, but all it took was one Einstein to demonstrate that he was not totally correct, and that a Universe of Absolutes was actually a universe of relativity.
- more formally, an authority is an entity that authors a law or defines/designs a structure in some medium. Legislators, artists, writers, designers, etc. - somewhat informally, authority is any entity that 'lays down the law' such as parent, guardian, teacher, elder sibling, judge etc...determined by whatever the relationship hierarchy consists of in a particular setting. It is usually agreed or imposed into being. that's my rough draft of it, anyway. some authority i am.... pfff :)
I'd really like to know why when people start talking logic they start attacking the bible and defend evolution. That begs the question. The bible is divine because it claims it contains the mind of god and not because it says so. Wouldn't it be more logical to ask what is the mind of god? Or if one claims it is inspired by god because of all the prophesies that were fulfilled to then ask- were prophesies fulfilled? It's too easy to say the bible is circular reasoning and leave it at that. That's the lazy sheep fallacy.
conspiracy theorist also use fear mongering, appeal to emotion to booster their position. conspiracy theorist and their fallacies. slippery slope fallacy, straw man fallacy, appeal to emotion fallacy( fear mongering), cherry picking fallacy, begging the question fallacy, etc. No wonder Alex Jones is so popular.
Solid video with some good content. However, the constant references to MGTOW in your examples was repetitive and makes you seem like you have a giant chip on your shoulder. I suggest just sticking to the fallacies topic and save whatever feelings you have about MGTOW for a separate video.
How 'bout the "twelve angry men" fallacy? If you've ever seen that movie, the one staring Henry Fonda, then you may have a grasp of what it's like to be the one vs. the eleven. And one juror has to get to the ball game, "So let's hurry up and make it twelve to none," he said. But hold on a sec, said Jane Fonda's dad, what about that witness who kept on rubbing the top of his nose, and then another piece of evidence that pointed to the probable fact that he usually wore glasses, but wasn't wearing them while testifying at the trial, possibly for vanity reasons? How many glasses-wearers wear their glasses to bed? Of course none. So this guy in about two seconds after waking up sees the kid running down the stairs after he stabbed his father? How 'bout he couldn't see that much at all without his glasses, eh? And just then the count became ten to two. Anyway, blah blah blah, after a few more of these, the count did eventually become unanimous, but Bridget Fonda's grandfather, point by point, probable (but not certifiable) fact by fact, convinced all eleven to side WITH him instead of against him. Verdict? Innocent. But who's got time to read point by point why you should change your mind if the person trying to learn you up doesn't have very many subs? TL;DR you are other-abled or developmentally disabled if you didn't read every word of the above before reading these words.
that's an amazing movie... one of my all time favorites... but I don't see how is that a fallacy on it's own...? do you mean that the plot of whole the movie is somehow a fallacy...? I'd say there was a good number of logical fallacies made thru the movie... and they were addressed by logical arguments resulting in the change of verdict... actually now when I think about it I might watch the movie one more time and make a list of logical fallacies.... that be fun...!
