Logical Fallacies 

this is what people need to learn not just in college but in high school too. this is very important i believe as many people argue with fallacies.

The narrator's deadpan delivery was unintentional comedic gold. Great video! : ))

It's actually very useful to know of these because, a lot of comedy (esp. satire) use these fallacies to prove a point. In fact, I bet one could short hand an improvised stand up routine with simply a common, well-known subject, and knowledge of logical fallacies.

"Thank you, St. Thomas Aquinas, for being so logical." I'm dead laughing

This was a great video in listing some common logical fallacies. If you study them long enough, you will be able to tell when someone is using them against you, and will be prepared to defend yourself against it.

Thank you I have a test tomorrow and I needed help with False Equivalence and False Dilemma

My professor included this video as part of an assignment and I could not be more grateful. Why is this not taught in high school English?

Excellent video, you presented examples and provided reasons opposing each fallacy which made it all very easy to understand. Thank you!

Very nice overview of logical fallacies.

Great lessons. Thanks.

The complex question fallacy... I always used it as a joke to my friends, asking questions that they cannot answer. I find it hard to believe that people actually try to seriously get away with that rubbish.

thank you for sharing on this interesting and important topic.

Great video! I hope there's a part two on how to get good at recognizing them and how to address it. 😁

Hands down the best explanation of the types of Fallacys with understandable examples on RU-vid. The only thing I’m complaining is that there could be more types of fallacy mention and how two fallacys could be similar. E.G Begging The Question vs Circular Reasoning / Red Herring vs Straw Man.

"Sticking heroin needles in their eyeballs, or eating sheets of acid". That cracked me up. Great video. 👍

I have been looking for you all day.

'Begging the question' made me think of how Reddit had tried to figure out who the Boston marathon bomber was, ultimately wrongly destroying people's lives in the first place. One positive thing that came of it is that Reddit has not, and likely will not forget about this. I've seen them jump on people who tried following the same path. Its an interesting thing to see, especially considering we don't really see this level of 'lesson learned' anywhere else.

i need to watch this over an over !

Nice lesson, this was very informative.

Excellent. I've published your URL in a guide for students which I am writing at the moment.

A slippery slope proven right is spotting the foot-in-door technique in retrospect. Timing makes a difference. There have been situations where things went too far and were predicted by those who'd been accused of using this fallacy.

"Everything happens for a reason" is a phrase that can have diverse acceptions. In actual language usage that prase can be interchangeable with "every thing happens for a motive" , even an unknown, insensible or inplausible motive. The word "motive" can also have various acceptions: it is commonly used meanig "personal motivaton"', but "active cause" is also a possible acception.

GREAT presentation! Thank you for sharing on this interesting and important topic. The superstition aspect of the hasty generalization seems to rely too much on momentary consensus. You might have figured out something that no one else had. There may be little to no empirical evidence to support your view. Could that be considered a hasty generalization based on superstition? You say, "Paying attention to empirical evidence leads to rational conclusions." Generally, I agree. Examples might be Alfred Waegener or Galileo. Although they made arguments based on what they observed, their evidence was dismissed because it was not considered empirical evidence when they initially presented it. Later both men were proven correct. I understand that their adversaries were employing their own logical fallacies against them. Still, what's empirical data shifts. Or, what about proving Julius Caesar is real and the Hindu god Shiva is not? The only empirical evidence I have as to Caesar's factuality is the same I have for Shiva's. I have documents written by people I can't interview and statues of both. Yet, many rationally accept Caesar as fact and Shiva as myth. Could an argument be made for both without falling into Superstition. Curios on your thoughts.

Excellent video 👍

This video is needed now more than ever

HAHA! Are you a Harvard Professor? Great video!

thank you so much

"So, are you still beating your wife?" Why would anyone ask that question? Overall, great video!!!

The problem with this is that it essentially leads people to think that, because an argument CAN be falsely argued as a slippery slope, that there therefore is no such thing as a slippery slope, itself a fallacy of thought. If one admitted the existence of actual slippery slopes, and were able to distinguish between false claims of a necessary logical conclusion and an actual situation where one condition is not possible until a prerequisite condition has first happened to make it so, he might actually begin to truly think, rather than merely pride himself on avoiding certain fallacies while actually falling into others.

When it came to begging the question I immediately thought of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia.

Thanks 😀

The Acients educated with a model known as The Trivium, i.e., Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric. This corresponds to contemporary primary school. Their version of university, i.e., The Quadrivium was where Mathematics, Art, Philosophy ( as we understand it), and Natural Philosophy (our concept of Science). This approach was abandoned ages ago, thus I believe thought, discourse, education, public policy is a hot mess. Now, I'll freely admit that young children need exposure to, and comprehension of the fundamentals of mathematics, science, history, geography, etc., having a highly logical mind, great verbosity, and masterful rhetorical skills in the developmental stage would be of profound value to a young adult whether they went on to formal university or embarked on an auto-didactic (self taught) pursuit of knowledge.

So is it a slippery slope when a recovering alcoholic says they only have control over the first drink? Are the slopes sometimes actually slippery in real life?

Idk if I agree with ur example of faulty anology. U can argue guns are made to kill or wound but what about bayonets, or pocket knives that are made for self defense or something else. I'm pretty sure butterfly knives weren't made to "cut carrots"

This is the kind of education every human on the planet needs. Especially to understand their politicians.

A few comments: 1. Everything DOES happen for a reason - it's just that said reason is most likely mundane and clearly explainable. 2. Guns aren't designed to kill - they are designed to propel a projectile at high speed. The user of said firearm can choose to point it at a non-living target, at nothing in particular, or another living being. Your example mentioned knives, but for some reason you went to the very specific case of a kitchen knife. Would it have been any more reasonable to specifically point to a specially made skeet shooting shotgun as a case for all firearms? I realize these were examples provided, but it's worth addressing them.

Here's MY question as a guy who's honestly trying to learn to argue (not fight) without sounding like a damn fool: isn't calling something a logical fallacy...a logical fallacy, itself?? For instance, the slippery slope. Doesn't the slippery slope argument OFTEN come true??

However, you have missed a few important and most frequently encountered logical fallacies such as equivocation fallacy, Ad Populum/Vox Populli, Post hoc Ergo Propter hoc (After this, therefore because of this) etc.

I have issue with the slippery slope fallacy. Predictions are a thing, no? It is possible to determine an outcome from afar.

Never heard this in any of my psychology or sociology classes in highschool or college. Must be for a reason.

Would the faulty analogy example you gave be a good example? Like your saying guns and knives have different uses, guns are made to kill, where knives are meant to cut carrots. I don't think that's right. (Could be wrong) but most guns are made to kill and that's exactly what most knives are also made for. Even if you have to say combat knife. Is that really faulty analogy? Just trying to work this out in my head, I'm not sure.

thanks

He really said "tea-bagger faschist" to represent the ad-hominem 😂😂😂 😂 tf

Many logical fallacies take a doctorate degree to understand. Often they are thrown about without the accuser really knowing when it applies and when it doesn't. Now the one that I've yet earned a doctorate on :) and am unsure about is the Slippery Slope fallacy. On one hand I can see that saying something worse will happen just because of another event does not lead to a conclusion that something worse WILL happen. On the other hand if we start from an absolute and then transgress it, i don't see the why it would be illogical to conclude that once one exception is made, more exceptions will eventually be found and the absolute nature of the starting point will be destroyed.

This video made me think a lot, therefore it's an excellent video! (I realize what I did lol, don't reply with silliness please)

I wonder how the Complex Question fallacy is different from Red Herring.

good man

never heard this stuff in school

Yeah.... For 'Slippery Slope', I'm not getting the Declaration of Independence example at all. Not to mention the fact that history is RIFE with examples of the slippery slope actually coming to pass, as may have been warned. I mean, TECHNICALLY, and by the rules of sound debate, yes, slippery slope is a rhetorical fallacy, but...

This was very good. It should be a required class in high school and repeated in college.

bless up

All creationists, flat earthers, and many others who believe in psuedoscientific claptrap, or superstitious nonsense should watch this video and learn from it.

Calling someone a deluded hipster can be a description, not just an insult, if it does describe someone it's a case that looks like the fallacy ad hominem but really isn't.

The virgin dark psychology user vs the Chad logic user

Isn't the generalization fallacy itself a false dichotomy fallacy?! When people generalize in a statement they obviously know that not every single member of the group they generalize behaves in a certain way; but they make a statement based on a higher than random associated attribute to the group. For example, Irish people have lighter color hair compared to Italians. Well, we all know there are dark hair Irish. But the statement is not made in absolute, it's a comparison of two generalizations or averages. So, to assume that unless every instance of the issue is correct for the statement not to be a generalization fallacy is itself a false dichotomy or black & white fallacy.

Is the statement “There is no such thing as a good cop.” a hasty generalization? Because the logic to that statement is “Even if the cop is good, the laws that they are forced to practice and force others to practice, are prejudiced, then that makes the good cop an automatic bad cop.”

The complex question is also called loaded question

Thanks, good for sleepin.

Let's come up with our own logical fallacy. I will start. *Argumentum verterunt exterorum* *The aliens argument* This is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone makes the conclusion of aliens (extra-terrestrials) when they don't understand their opponent's argument. It typically takes the form of an argument from incredulity and an argument from ignorance, but with a second conclusion. In some cases, it can even be a red herring (irrelevant topic), ignorantio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion), or non sequitur (does not logically follow). *Logical form* _I don't understand how argument A is true._ _Therefore, argument A is false._ _Therefore, aliens._ Example: I don't understand how the big bang theory is true. Therefore, the big bang theory is false. Therefore, aliens.

The slippery slope argument can be perfectly reputable if used correctly. It does not (I think) qualify as a fallacy, because it is an argument about probable outcomes, not certain ones. Fallacies are a concept applicable to logical propositions, which deal in crisp binaries of "true vs false" . The Second Amendment is a classic case of a slippery slope in operation. The original amendment (as the wording suggests) concerned the security of the nation (against external threats). That amendment has been used for a springboard, over the last four decades, for a completely new set of concerns: the security of individuals (against perceived threats from other individuals) and the security of "the people" against the putative internal threat of a tyrannical government. But this slippery slope mission creep was not a certain outcome at the time of the amendment, as witness the fact that it took several centuries to get underway. Hence it is not the province of logic.

Slippery slope isn’t always a fallacy.

It’s kind of concerning that modern culture (as I see it from my view, mustn’t commit another fallacy), seems to encourage irrational thinking.

pretty sure that someone who does cancer research on an internationally famous level would be a good doctor

Logical fallacies are common among flat earthers, evolution deniers, absurd conspiracy theorists and science deniers.

Never said what type of knife.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME? What is an exegetical Fallacy?

You just eliminated every religious argument for centuries

Sadly, there are quite a few offensive examples in this presentation that I cannot use it in the classroom."sociopaths""do you still beat your wife""Bible"

Forgot the straw man.

the harvard professor got hurt

Making a logical fallacy to explain a logical fallacy: Guns can be used to kill, therefore their purpose is to kill. Knives can be used to cut carrots, therefore their purpose is to cut carrots. Logical fallacy debunked: Most guns are not used to kill people, and most gun owners claim they have them for self defense. Many people shoot recreationally, for hunting, and for other training purposes. Millions of cops use guns daily, but kill fewer than a thousand people per year. Therefore the primary use of all firearms is not to kill. Many knives are designed as fighting tools, and blades were the primary tool of warriors for centuries before the advent of firearms. Most states have laws against certain knives, or the carrying of blades of a certain type. Therefore just because most knives can be used to cut carrots, the primary use of all knives cannot be said to be for cutting carrots. They certainly can be described as weapons, and certain jurisdictions actually have banned the carrying and/or possession of knives.

all my homies hate logical fallacies

It is not well said about "begging the question" - "not talking about facts" People should be more sceptical to facts that can not be true, couse all senses can show negative information

Not clear, need more examples. Besides, would be nice to have an answer on how to deal with those who are guilty of logical fallacies.

8:20 Guns are for maiming people and knives are for carrots -> hasty generalization, strawman, Texas sharpshooter, and begging the question. Good job at creating an example with at least 4 fallacies built in!

We can all agree that we're here so we could learn to degrade and miniscule someone the right way.

Ad hominem, Hasty generalization, False dichotomy, Begging the question, Faulty analogy, Slippery slope, Relativist fallacy, Non sequitur, The Complex Question Fallacy, Circular reasoning, The Red herring, Appeal to fear, Appeal to authority, The Bandwagon...

You are wrong saying that Catholic priests hold advanced degrees. I think most have bachelors in theology.

You say sociopath like it is a bad thing.

Faulty reasoning, knives are not just designed to cut carrots, there are military knives, daggers, stilettos, etc. Some guns are designed chiefly for hunting game. Knives and guns share a fundamental similarity - they are both benign objects that are dangerous when used to commit violent acts. And saying marijuana is a gateway drug is not the same as saying that legalizing marijuana will suddenly cause a nation of heroin addicts. Talk about your false dichotomies / straw man arguments. Good video but somewhat ruined by what seems to be a political agenda.

What's so bad about logical fallacies?

The priest example is terrible, that's like saying someone can compete on a professional level in the NBA, NFL and MLB just by getting degrees and doing coursework.

4:08 'All things happen for a reason' is a bad example and it blows out determinism, karma, cause and effect (I.e. much of 'science') and probably more concepts that have lots of evidence going for them. at 6:10 For the false dichotomy, 'love it or leave it' is an good example so why add your opinion to explain why it's a silly statement? The point is those are not are clearly not the only two options for Americans. You didn't need to mention the doves at all and the doves quote doesn't even give two choices so it isn't a false dichotomy, and why throw in your opinion in a video explaining fallacies... 7:17 The media accusing the parents of murder is just them making a descision based off little evidence - there is no begging the question fallacy in that unless they specifically said, 'It is a fact so there is no need for a trial and this should not be questioned because we said so'. 8:33 The point of banning guns is because people are using them to kill other people - it is not that those people are using the guns to kill and maim in general. Gov are not banning guns because they don't want people hunting or shooting 'pest' animals like deer. Knife attacks on people are plentiful, as with guns, so knifes and guns do have a fundamental similarity - knifes are banned on flights and in schools etc. And again your opinion added on at the end is not needed in a video explaining fallacies. 9:00 Slippery slope - saying 'weed is a gateway drug' is not a fallacy and it is very likely true that almost all hard drug users tried weed first. You have to mention the person saying this is arguing that 'weed is a gateway drug therefore decriminalizing it will suddenly produce many hard drug addicts etc.' Adding your 'good argument' for not decriminalising weed is unnecessary and ridiculous - you are saying 'something is harmful, therefore it should be illegal.' Isn't the point about whether more people will smoke weed + use hard drugs if weed was decriminalized? No one is arguing that weed isn't harmful to peoples memories... 13:50 False or misleading claims about some else is not the same as a leading question or loaded question. At the end - 'Shady... dishonest ways of knowing..' I don't think I have ever heard this phrase. What does it even mean? Ways of knowing what? Someone please correct me if I made a mistake. I have watched a few of these videos recently and they all seem to have numerous mistakes. What's going on?!

1:30 Racial slurs? Hardly nobody uses them. On the other hand the most common ad hominem is to call the opponent a racist. 9:22 How can one prove that something would happen? One can just say that it is likely. When you have lived long enough you ave seen how one thing leads to another. Each change we do creates a new normal new changes are evaluated to that normal not to the preceding one. Sure slippery slope can be a fallacy but I say in 90% of the cases it is not.

Guns are designed to kill or maim... False. It is designed to launch a projectile at a high speed with the use of a controlled explosion from the ignition of gunpowder... Knives are designed to cut carrots False. Knives are designed to separate a piece of something from the whole of that something by sliding a sharp edge between the two

1:52 I'm sorry, but for real go to an objective, secular counsellor who doesn't have any imaginary friends.

Your "faulty analogy" portion of this video is laughable at best and in and of itself is based in logical fallacies, before the gun knives were also used to maim and kill, they are often used for secondary weapons, therefore your opinion of cutting carrots has only partial data.

very few people are logical...to much work!!

How the hell is the idea that everything happens for a reason a superstitious claim? That's about as obvious a claim as you can make, unless you are a deconstructionist.

If you think the "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy talk to a recovering addict...

4:16 you suggest appealing to evidence right after you provide an apologetic view for priests giving marriage advice. That, my friend, makes no sense 😂

Too quick not clear

Bible circular argument? All reasoning is circular

I'm not so sure I have faith in "honorable people". They are so few and far between that they appear largely ineffective. It seems far more useful to appeal to a broader audience to accomplish a task; strength in numbers and all.

your argument of the faulty analogy is, well, faulty. the opinion that guns and knives don;t share fundamental similarities, is.....just your opinion. plenty of knives were most definitely designed to hut kill and maim, you stated your opinion they were designed to chop carrots as fact

i dont get it lol why are people smart

This video gets so many things wrong. Many people seem to think that all fallacies are logical fallacies. There are actually two kinds of fallacies: formal and informal. Formal fallacies are logical fallacies. Informal fallacies are not logical fallacies. This video defined fallacies as "Logical fallacies are forms of flawed thinking." Ignoring the equivocation here, a fallacy is specifically an argument form in which true premises can lead to a false conclusion. There are many types of bad reasoning that are not erroneous arguments or errors of logic. For example: the confirmation bias, the hostile attribution bias, and the optimistic expectation bias. These are neither argument forms nor logical deductions and thus fall outside the definition of "logical fallacy". The so called "Slippery Slope Fallacy" is not a fallacy. The form of the slippery slope is this: If A, then B. If B, then C, if C, then D. Therefore: if A, then D. This is just a hypothetical syllogism chain. The video claims that it's a fallacy because it lacks evidence, but that doesn't matter. If the premises are, then the conclusion must also be true. If someone makes a slippery slope argument and fails to offer sufficient evidence for the premises, then the appropriate response is to say "Your premises are are unwarranted, therefore your conclusion is unwarranted." It is not appropriate to say "Your premises are unwarranted, therefore your argument form is invalid."

crap duck duck duck

Listen to a Trump speech or press conference and you'll likely get an example of most these.

3:19 voice crack