I think that it's mostly a false ""P1'' situation, as the initial arguments are oversimplified. For example, when saying ''my house is pink'', you should mean that the whole house is pink, including the front door, windows, etc. The correct ''P1'' is ''My house walls are pink''. Same applies in the car situation. I think that this fallacy is mostly a problem of mental shortcuts our brains create both in creation and resolution of the argument. Another example I thought of, is: P1: I am alive P2: My hairs are parts of me C1: My hairs are alive. That may sound true, but we should first define what exactly ''I' am' and what being alive means.
I don't think that's what people 'should' mean if they say "my house is pink." At the very least, it isn't what people typically *do* mean when they say something like that. In ordinary language, if I say "Cookie Monster is blue," I neither do nor should mean that Cookie Monster's pupils, eyeballs, prolapsed anus, etc. must each be individually blue as well. It's more of a general statement about Cookie Monster on the whole.
Better examples please. I find it difficult to agree with the HDD argument. First of all it seems unlikely that the HDD would become destructible if you remove it. But even if I agree with that then one could argue that the computer is destroyed when the HDD is removed. Indestructible is kind of a bad example anyway.
I think you missed the point of the fallacies argument. It is really irrelevant if you think it is unlikely that a HDD or SSD is indestructible or not. The example is simple, and accurate, so that it demonstrates the point easily. He could have said the case of the computer, it wouldn't have mattered.
@@simmo7670 , rewatched and I disagree. The point is clear enough. But the example is bad. I say that if a device is indestructible then all it’s vital parts must also be indestructible. With some reservation for how you define “destroyed”. In this case I define it as “not able to perform key functions.” If the hard drive is destroyed then the computer cannot operate and so it is “destroyed”. Sure it is possible to think up cases where this is not the case, maybe a new hard drive magically manifests inside the computer as soon as one is removed, but it becomes impractical to reason this way. If we do we can say that everything is indestructible because it can only be reshaped and thus it continues to exist and is not destroyed.
@@mockupguy3577 or like most computers it has more than one hard drive.... The point isn't that a computer is "indestructible" or is destructible. It's that if it is (or isn't) it is a fallacy to say that because that the parts are (or aren't), that depending on P1 as PROOF of the conclusion is wrong. It is an analogy that most people can understand, and by breaking down the semantics, it doesn't change the point of the message. Anyway, if you can't see that, that's fine by me. Hope you have a great night either way mate.
Nice video, but i thing the examples need a bit of work. The "red car" is a false generalisation in itself, since in a car that is considered red by any reasonable person, only select parts are actually red. No part of the interior needs to be red, just as all of the components of the suspension, parts inside the engine bay or the exhaust system. And for the velocity, as long as the muffler is part of the car, it moves at the same speed as the car. As the indestructible computer is concerned... Apart from being highly theoretical, for a system to be indestructible, all its vital parts MUST be indestructible. If one part fails, the system stops working. So the conclusion, that in an indestructible system all vital components are also indestructible, is not a fallacy of division.
+Nordish Kiel All things being theoretical: That would depend on the reason the computer is indestructible. If the only reason the computer is indestructible is because it is made of adamantium, then the internal parts could still be damaged if they are not also adamantium. But, if the reason the computer is indestructible is because it has closed system of protection like inertial dampeners or a force-field. Then the hard drive could only be protected while inside the computer. This fallacy could also fall under the pink house conclusion. It may or may not be true.
Another example pf this can be seen socially, peoppe buy expensive cars or phones. People assume that because 1. They own the item 2. The item is expensive C. They must be wealthy Which can be wildly false and it is their intention to convey a mixed message to become more important in society.
Guilt by association can be fatal. Deductive reasoning. These logical fallacies have diverse application beginning with positive and negative cognitive assessments on the physical ( logical) and emotional ( logical) spectrum. In other words feelings matter. That makes fallacies both infallible and fallible. Especially when physical well-being is attached to emotional well-being. How's that for deconstruction.
One of my key arguments against (the modern issue of) 'climate change' is: if CO2 changes the climate, where does it change the weather? Why don't pilots and other users of the weather factor in this gas? Am I committing a fallacy of division here?
Thank you for your explanation, great By the way would you please tell me how did you make this animation with a hand that writes?! I'll appreciate your answer, thank you very much
I kind of feel bad for the last reasonning, "therefore the front door is pink", doesn't quite convince me. IMO, it is still a fallacy, which is coincidentally acurate. am i mistaken ?
what about this? P1: The mind is a consequence of the operating brain P2: The operations of the brain are deterministic phenomena C1: The mind is deterministic
+Kanalratte hmm sorry but I dont understand how your explanation proves that the conclusion is invalid unless there was evidence of the mind behaving independently of the brain while there is plenty of evidence (thanks to electric stimulation and lobotomies) that strongly links both behaviours.
I take it you study philosophy? hahah Im new to all this since Im a physics student, maybe its this fact what makes me think of the conclusion as valid.
You could argue two fallacies here: First, a fallacy of equivalence, since the word "operating" in the first sentence and "operations" in the second are not necessarily using the same definition. Second, a fallacy of composition, as it is assumed that there is no difference between the mind and the operations of the brain that make it up.
I was explaining this to an atheist who tried telling me I believe in Hell, even when I made it clear I don't, because the belief in Hell is part of Christian doctrine. I gave a few examples of Christian denominations that reject the existence of Hell, but he then committed the no true Scotsman fallacy by telling me they're not true Christians.
Your argument here is basically "A muffler is a part of a car. If a muffler isn't fast on its own, a car that has a muffler isn't fast", which obviously wouldn't work either. They could've used a better one, I think mine works, but it would still be a fallacy to assume that a part of something shares attribute X of the whole. Besides, something doesn't have to be wrong to be a fallacy. Fallacy simply means that it leads to wrong conclusions, not that the conclusion you drew is necessarily false. It's just that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
It's not the same as the muffler example. "This computer is indestructible" "Ok. What about it I got the hard drive" "Then it breaks" "So the computer is not indestructible?" "No"
You could argue that the 'indestructable' only refers to the whole computer when all parts are together or it just applied to the tower. But yeah, it's a pretty bad example for what they're trying to show, seeing how indestructable isn't just some conditional term that can apply, but an absolute one that would always have to apply, by definition. Basically like "X is omniscient, but doesn't know/X is omnipotent, but can't...".
The examples given make no sense this video makes no sense. "If My car is red and it goes real fast" "therefore my muffler is red and it goes really fast" HUH? that right there is fallacy that is attributing that the color red to the car going fast but red has nothing to do with how fast the car goes? Was this deliberately designed to confuse people and be wrong?
