In this video, you’ll learn about kinds of logical fallacies and how to spot them. Visit edu.gcfglobal.org/en/problem-... to learn even more. We hope you enjoy!
TO SUM IT UP: False cause (correlation-causation): identifies the cause of something incorrectly because they are correlated Straw man: Misrepresenting someone else's argument to make them seem better or worse Begging the question: Using part of the conclusion as reasoning False dichotomy: representing only two choices when there are more.
I guess Im asking randomly but does anyone know a trick to get back into an instagram account? I was stupid forgot my password. I appreciate any tips you can give me
Learning about logical fallacies and seeing how everyone uses them but be able to critique yourself to come up with arguments That are based on rational and logic is something that should be taught at a very young age Im just now learning about logical fallacies and I’ve done my best to catch myself when using one of them it’s made me a much better critical thinker
I started to learn about logical fallacies after I dropped out of college. A popular atheist named Matt Dillahunty is the person who I mostly credit for teaching me to use spot them in Christian arguments for God via YT videos. I agree though they should be emphasized at a much younger age. It teaches one how to think.
@@julienwoodstock5546 It is intentional. It is hard to convince a people they need a new form of governance when they literally govern themselves. To pull a trick like that, you need an ignorant populace. Hence the modern public school system.
The worst is the fallacy fallacy. Just because something is poorly argued doesn't mean it is wrong. The point being, if you are correct but your logic isn't 100% sound, you need to improve your argument. Sometimes you just need more evidence because you can't be absolutely definitive. Sometimes that is good enough. The slippery slope is a good example. Just because you have drawn a trend line based on past results doesn't necessarily mean that future events will continue to follow the trend. However if you completely ignore trend lines you are also a fool. If your trend line is made of 2 points its a bad example, if it is 5 or 100 you might want to pay closer attention.
I love this video so much. Very straight forward, has great visuals and enticing voice. Really helped me out with my homework tonight. No I’m not a bot I’m just super faded rn and trying to get my point across but I still feel smart form this video. Anywayssss have a happy day!
I am forever grateful for my 12th grade English & philosophy (I know, I’ve since heard it’s totally weird be to taught philosophy in high school let alone a Catholic high school) for teaching us about logical fallacies!!’
@@erica863 In my own (anecdotal) and subjective experience, I personally notice that Ad Hominem is almost everywhere in unstructured online debates, often with an argument with it. Most online debates I notice burden of proof fallacy, where claim-makers say “Can you prove me wrong?” without any evidence. On RU-vid, the black and white fallacy is EVERYWHERE.
Something that sometimes happens to me is that when someone cooks something that looks and/or smells good, I say "That looks good", or "That smells good", but the one who cooked it replies almost as if correcting me saying "It IS good". As if I was saying that it only smells or looks good but probably doesn't taste good. That always annoys me and I can't understand how someone's logic can be so twisted to assume that I'm saying it doesn't taste good just because I say it looks/smells good. Can someone give me some insight on this? or if you respond like this, please explain!
I’m not expert in logic fallacies, But I have become quite interested in them that I’ve tried to pick pocket them and see how it’s actually used quite frequently in everyday life. If anything it probably is a straw man, because they take away what you didn’t mention and present it against you to make it seem like you dont know what you’re saying. Remember, I’m no expert in these but I’m trying my best to recognize them and try to point them out and educate people
i think you may have just used a logical fallacy there; you're assuming the person means to correct you, when they may instead be confirming what you say. it's a habit people can have.
Watching this makes me question myself Am i just lazy but keep making excuses to get my way outa problem? Do i assume things wrong then say that it is wrong?
I was in a relationship with someone that always used the false dichotomy on me … if they texted me or called and I didn’t answer it meant I was cheating on them…. They never thought about I was at work or if I was sleeping when it was 3am.
Great video, all in all. But right at the end, you create a false dichotomy yourself when you ask us to choose between “rhetoric” and “logic”. Reasoning and logic are aspects of rhetoric, along with all the other appeals and fallacies we use. Using logic and reasoning well are powerful rhetorical tools, but they are just one of the ways we engage in dialogue with each other in the hopes of changing each other’s minds and gaining assent through debate/discussion.
I believe that in most cases it isn't the desire to change someone's mind but the desire to for self gratification. What you expect to gain from a discussion is relevant to the person you are discussing with.
thats cool and all but has anyone actually found the Square Root of Boo? seems pretty important..... could the equation be Boo x Pi = Scream? These are the burning questions that keep me up at night.
@BluckKraken I Everything is founded on our beliefs . I think therefore I am. What I'm really getting at is that a logical fallacy is just a means to undermine someone else's argumentative position. You may undermine their position by stating that they have produced a logical fallacy but you have not necessarily deconstructed their position and proved them wrong , the fallacy fallacy deals with this. ☺
@BluckKraken I 15) The Fallacy Fallacy Here's something vital to keep in mind when sniffing out fallacies: just because someone's argument relies on a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that their claim is inherently untrue. Making a fallacy-riddled claim doesn't automatically invalidate the premise of the argument -- it just means the argument doesn't actually validate their premise. In other words, their argument sucks, but they aren't necessarily wrong.
Critical thinking should be taught in school, it should be a whole class in and of itself. It's so important and directly affects what you will believe in and how you will affect the world.
@tlessmo Is the fact that some fallacies can be subtle and hard to recognize by many actually a sign that more should learn about them? And because it's rare and unfamiliar to many, does that suddenly render that fallacy to no longer be illogical?
If it took you 2 years to learn the importance of logical fallacies by watching Fox News then it is apparent that you're a slow learner. I learnt it in a couple hours after watching CNN.
I feel like the begging the question one wasn't really a solid example. He wasn't using circular logic he was using witness evidence for its justification. A better one would be ghosts exist because if they didn't exist we wouldn't have a word for them. (This too isn't a very good example)
in my experience neither side is balanced. republicans argue with pure logos and technicalities without regard for the ethos and pathos, while democrats argue with ethos and pathos without regard for logos
@@josephhaynes4526 Not only untrue (Andrew Neil destroyed him) but since the majority of those he argues with are young kids without training in logic or debate, it is little wonder that he does indeed those debates.
2:04 on begging the question, regarding the demonstration. why did you say he "assumed" that ghost exists? if he already saw it with his own eyes, isn't it part of his personal knowledge? knowledge that passed through one's senses is valid. so why still consider it as an assumption? it may not be an objective fact, but it can still be considered a fact since he has personal knowledge of it. hence, it is no longer an assumption. so, the word "assumption" in the video is inaccurate. now proving such fact to others is different because it requires arguments that would support his claim. if he uses his personal knowledge to come up with a conclusion as to why his fact should be accepted as objective knowledge, now that falls on the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Engine Cadet Jardiolin I think fallacy falls to applied existence. We say That something"exist" based upon what we perceive with senses. You should say then that everything we call real it's actually assume as such and not shown with evidence and reasoning. In the world labelling things as real by a fallacy or rather to fallacies since there's the beginning and Question one and the consensus one.
This is what RU-vid TikTok etc. should be posting every day not garbage I feel like people would be better off with using logic and reason other than emotions
Wait a moment.. about the Begging the Question one... so if I say that I saw something (or heard, or smelled, or touched, whatever), this is not enough to say that it exists? Fair enough. I could be hallucinating. BUT what about all the rest? What makes something "real"? What if ANYONE is hallucinating? Recognizing this fallacy doesn't really help us refraining from this possibility. It doesn't help us separating hallucination from reality, but what does really? Example: let's say I did see a ghost and I'm sure it was a ghost. How could I prove its existence? If I just saw it, say, for a moment while I was passing by a shop and saw it inside the shop from the outside, and then it was gone... what other way do I have to say it, if not a fallacious one? I think this fallacy fails to be applied to existence. We say that something "exists" based upon what we perceive with senses. You should say, then, that everything we call "real" it's actually assumed as such, and not shown with evidence and reasoning. What is evidence, at all? Is it whatever has the most consensus upon? Then we're going straight into another fallacy, the consensus fallacy. In this case: "If the majority (or unanimity) of people say x exists, then it exists" , which happens to be the real-life actual worldwide case. Is the world labelling things as "real" by a fallacy? Or rather, two fallacies since there's the Begging the Question one and the Consensus one? One has to fallaciously speculate the existence of something to proceed and find proofs of it. Why would anyone go and find evidence about the existence of something if they don't even suspect it to exists? Is our perception of reality programmed to be - at least initially - fallacious in its nature? Are our brains somehow hardwired to fallacy?
It's called science, science seeks to find the truth to the highest possible degree of certainty (since, like you said, we could be a brain in a jar and just imagining everything somehow). In the pursuit of such truth, science uses evidence to add credibility to it's claims. The more evidence, the more credible the claim is. If you can't prove that you saw a ghost, how do you know what you saw WAS a ghost? Isn't it crazy to think that what you saw was a ghost when we have no actual evidence that ghosts even exist? In science, scientists use 'theories' to explain certain things, a theory in science isn't just an idea or a hunch, it's the entire compilation of evidence proving the thing and explaining various details using other evidence, if one day some of the evidence is shown to be wrong, the theory will change to adapt to the new finding, and the search for the truth will go on. That's the beauty of science, it's not discriminatory, if someone can give genuine evidence that ghosts exist, then that will be evidence that ghosts exist, but never forget, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you will need to provide evidence that passes all scrutiny before it would get accepted. That's why you can't start an argument in favor of you seeing a ghost, for you to have seen a ghost, ghosts have to be real in the first place, assuming that they are real without the evidence that they are means that you have a false premise, to properly prove you saw a ghost, you don't ask "Did I see a ghost" You ask "What was it that I saw?" and you work your way up from there.
@@spiritbx1337 science CAN be discriminatory. After all, scientists are also only human, subject to strong biases, personal and trained. They are not immune to fallacy either.
I even had a debate on the concept of logic the guy says I have super logic. S.o.b. logic is logic just use a little logic please if we continue to have a discussion. About 5 min went by and he couldnt help using some fallacy in every statement. Finally we stopped suddenly. I remarked you just made a logical remark a lightbulb went off in his head. Some people
That's what I don't get, if things are beyond our sense we couldn't know of them, and if they aren't then we can test it. There's not really a middle ground that isn't rife with excuses.
Wrong. That's a logical fallacy on your part. Just because a soul left a body doesn't mean it has to be "beyond our senses. " I have had my own experiences which have persuaded me of the paranormal.
While all ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies, not all insults are ad hominem attacks. If I point out with evidence someone's lack of credibility, I'm not suggesting they are wrong on every point they make, but it does show that they can't be taken on their word about the evidence they present. A lot of political debate comes down to credibility, which is why hypocrisy and duplicity are logical fallacies as well,
Logical fallacies exist in arguments, not in objects. You can have logical fallacies in arguments about a certain theme, but just saying "whats a logical fallacy in covid vacines" doesnt make much sense.
I'm not sure I accept your explanation of begging the question. Begging the question is a way of not answering a question. Consider the original version of "why did the chicken cross the road?" We can assume that the intent was to get to the other side, but if we use that as the answer, we have not identified the motive.
As a person who's in Gen Z and has liberal political views, I Am ashamed of my generation as the woke left uses logical fallacies just to enforce their ideology to the youth. Like "Not donating to LGBT Charities makes you a bigot" is an example of a logical fallacy. Which violates the golden rule of logic "Correlation does not equal Causation". They are many conservatives out there that doesn't support the LGBTQ+ But they are not Nazis. Just someone doesn't support LGBT Because of their ideology, religion or they never heard it doesn't make them a Nazi. Because half of the world is conservative doesn't make them a Nazi.
Your argument here also jumps to a conclusion though. Your argument operates on the premise that all religions lie in order to make people believe them without providing evidence that every religion does this.
that was a badly explained example for begging the question (aka begging the claim). The problem with George saying "Ghosts exist because I saw one" is not that he presumed ghosts exist. That's not what begging the question is ... most claims start out with a hypothesis and doing so doesn't make it a begging the claim fallacy. The problem with George's claim was that it shifts the question to the accuracy of his sight, which has not been established. This is circular in that he presumed his vision was infallible (the claim), but it was not so you're back where you started.
Person A: The children's winter concert at the school should include non-Christmas songs too. Person B: You won't be happy until Christmas songs are banned from being played on the radio! This example of a straw man argument is related to slippery slope reasoning
Hi there! It's not the case. A logical fallacy uses false cause as an argument. A false cause is when someone incorrectly identifies the cause of something.
"Hitler is a dictator" isnt an argument, therefore it cannot contain logical fallacies. You arent drawing anything from the fact. Its simply a factual statement (correct or incorrect)
