Content: 00:00 Introduction 00:13 Accident Fallacy, Destroying The Exception, Dicto Simpliciter, Spoken Simply, Sweeping Generalisation 00:38 Resort to Anger 00:54 Ad Populum, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Majority, Appeal to Popularity, Bandwagon, Value of Community 01:18 Appeal to Novelty 01:33 Begging the Question, Chicken and Egg Argument, Circular Definition, Circular Reasoning 01:58 Complex Question, Double Blind, False Question, Loaded Question 02:20 Fallacy of Composition, Faulty Induction, Hasty Generalisation, Hasty Induction, Leaping to Conclusion, Statistical Generalisation 02:46 Fallacy of Division, Faulty Deduction 03:09 Converse Accident, Exception Fallacy, Inductive Generalisation, Insufficient Sample, Insufficient Statistics, Lonely Fact, Leaping to Conclusion, Stereotype 03:34 Bifurcation, Black And White Thinking, Either/Or, Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, False Dilemma, Polarisation 04:04 Arguing from Succession Alone, Assumed Causation, False Cause, Faulty Causation, Post Hoc, Questionable Cause 04:35 False Effect, Non Causa Pro Causa 04:58 Illicit Major 05:18 Illicit Minor 05:39 Insignificant Cause, Insufficient Cause 06:00 Misleading Vividness, Anecdotal Fallacy 06:25 Slippery Slope, Absurd Extrapolation, Butterfly Effect 06:49 Undistributed Middle 07:08 Biased Sample, Fallacy of Exclusion, Unrepresentative Sample 07:29 Ecological Fallacy, Ecological Inference Fallacy, Population Fallacy 07:54 Wishful Thinking, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief 08:14 Appeal To Probability, Appeal To Possibility 08:35 Affirming a Disjunct, Alternative Disjunct, False Exclusionary Disjunct 09:08 Affirming the Consequent, Converse Fallacy, Confusion of Necessity and Sufficiency 09:26 Denying the Antecedent, Inverse Fallacy, Inverse Error 09:49 Existential Fallacy, Existential Instantiation 10:10 Accent Fallacy, Emphasis Fallacy 11:04 Amphiboly, Amphibology 11:21 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam 11:44 Proof by Assertion, Alleged Certainty 11:59 Appeal to Common Practice 12:15 Appeal to Emotion 12:31 Appeal to Fear, Consequences, In Terrorem, Scare Tactics 12:53 Appeal to Force, Appeal to Violence, Ad Baculum 13:15 Appeal to Flattery 13:27 Appeal to Ignorance, Argument from Ignorance, Ad Ignorantiam, Burden of Proof 13:55 Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy 14:13 Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, Horse Laugh Fallacy, Ad Ridiculum 14:39 Appeal to Spite, Argumentum ad Odium 14:57 Appeal to Tradition, Ad Antiquitatem 15:13 Appeal to Trust 15:32 Against the Person, Ad Hominem 15:51 Cancelling Hypothesis, Conspiracy Theory 16:10 Equivocation, Semantic Equivocation, Fallacy of Four Terms 16:36 False Analogy, False Metaphor, Weak Analogy 17:02 Argument from Middle Ground, Argument from Moderation, False Compromise, False Equivalence, Golden Mean Fallacy, Splitting the Difference 17:26 Gambler’s Fallacy, Monte Carlo, Maturity of Chances 17:48 Ad Nauseam, Argument by Repetition, Argument from Nagging 18:12 -- BLINK BLINK INTERMISSION -- 18:18 Secundum Quid, Ignoring Qualifications, Misuse of a Principle, In a Certain Respect and Simply 18:50 Many Questions Fallacy 19:14 Ignorance of Refutation, Ignoratio Elenchi, Irrelevant Conclusion, Missing the Point 19:39 Inconsistency 19:50 Personal Inconsistency, Tu Quo Que, You Too Fallacy 20:13 Discrediting, Poisoning the Well 20:33 Red Herring 21:10 Negation Introduction, Reductio ad Absurdum, Reduction to Absurdity 21.31 Concretism, Hypostatisation, Misplaced Concreteness, Reification 22:00 Social Conformity 22:20 Straw Man 22:38 Style Over Substance 23:00 The Fallacy Fallacy, Bad Reasons Fallacy, Argument to Logic
00:13 It's a form of sweeping generalisation, or destroying the exception. The interlocutor attempts to dismiss variation and richness in a group by denying that people s/he perceives as lacking certain traits can also be members of that group. (No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.) It can also be seen as confusion between necessary and contingent traits. Whether all Scotsmen like their porridge sugared is arguably a contingent statement: it may be true, but it can equally be false, whereas a combination of things like ancestry, residency, and cultural affinity may be more strongly argued to be necessary traits to be considered a true Scotsman.
@@babysharktv4562 3, Identify the fallacy: "Hospitals are dangerous places. Many people who visit them die in them". *18:18** Secundum quid* 4, Identify the fallacy: " So the U.S says that all nations should respect human rights? What about the American Abu Graib prison scandal?". *19:50** Tu quo que* 5, Identify the fallacy: "Atoms have free will, because humans have free will, and they are made of atoms". *02:46** Fallacy of division* 6, Identity the fallacy: "Look at the evil religions have done through the world's history. Since we ban things that are evil, obviously religions should be banned." *00:12** Sweeping generalisation* 7, Identify the fallacy: "Down with subsidised medical care! It is just what the Soviet communist states used to have." *20:13** Poisoning the well* 8, Identify the fallacy: "We should not condemn aggression towards weaker people because it is a natural instinct of all animals, including humans. *Naturalistic fallacy / is-ought problem*
Very nice video, thank you. There are a few bad examples though I thought - at 6:09 "immigrants brings diseases etc.." you need to say 'all immigrants.. ' or 'most immigrants' for it to be a fallacy because obviously there are some immigrant criminals etc. what percentage of immigrants need to be criminals before that stops being a fallacy? In your example I guess 100% Also at 16:09 'harmful vaccines are how pharmaceutical companies get rich'. The wording at the start is ambiguous. Harmful vaccines could be read as 'vaccines that have proven to be harmful'. If it said, 'vaccines that have proven to be harmful has made them rich' it wouldn't be a fallacy. Perhaps it should be 'intentionally harmful vaccines is how they get rich' Also at 19:40 'I'm not a racist but these immigrants are a plague'. If racism is 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior' then one may not be racist but also see that mass immigration is causing problems, or immigrants could be considered the downfall of an area or country or as a plague if you will. One can like locusts but consider a plague of them undesirable. This rest of this video though I think is great. Could someone please correct me if I am wrong about the bad examples.
Thanks for watching and for the feedback! This channel runs on pennies and good will. You can help us get voice actors by donating a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt Thanks!
I know how to end religion with the truth, that would end atheism. I was religious in my early years to become atheist and finally i understand that God is all eternal and infinite reality. Atheism is a logical fallacy or error of reasoning that assumes God is sky daddy or the imaginary friend with a terrible temper living in the sky that do religious miracles interfering with reality for prayers and concludes wrongly that the creator of the creation doesn’t exist because it is impossible that sky daddy exists. I need the fallacy of atheism to be understood because potentially infinite lives would be saved with my knowledge. An example of the innumerable examples of the fallacy of atheism is the statement "God has an unalterable and perfect plan for every person, but you should still pray in a vain attempt to change it." attributed to David G. Mcafee. How atheists know God has an unalterable and perfect plan? What are the evidences that the creator of the creation has an unalterable and perfect plan? Religious people have told atheists who is God and atheists have believed them to conclude wrongly the creator of the creation doesn’t exist. To not be fallacious the statement should be "The religious concept of God has an unalterable and perfect plan for every person, but you should still pray in a vain attempt to change it.". To determine if something exists or not first we must know what is that something. Atheists believe God is who he is not and don't believe God exists, and they are wrong because they believe. An analogy would be that humanity believed horses have a horn on the head and do magic and atheists didn't believe horses exist and religious people believed in unicorns. Atheists don't see horses because they are looking for unicorns and religious people believe in unicorns because horses exist because nothing can be created from nothing. The evidence that God exists is the creation and is everywhere always because God is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist. The bible is only proof that Jesus Christ doesn't exist, like the Qurʾan is only proof that Allah doesn't exist, but to conclude God doesn’t exist atheism would have to provide arguments to refute the arguments for the existence of the creator of the creation. Humanity have misunderstood the nature of God personifying a metaphysical entity with disastrous consequences. Atheism can only conclude rationally that the religious concept of God doesn’t exist. Reality is what it is and when we die what is going to happen or not happen is regardless of our beliefs. Is it possible to be wrong? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong believing? Atheists believe it is impossible to be wrong because it is impossible that sky daddy exists and religious people should be cautious considering that the bible is nonsensical to religious people and atheists alike, except for christians that defend an idea that contradicts reality with faith and without arguments. "God" is the name in english that the creator of the creation has been given. God is by definition the creator of the creation. To ask to demostrate that the creator of the creation is God is like asking to demostrate that sweet food are desserts. When atheists ask to demostrate that the creator of the creation is God or to prove God's existence what they have in their mind is the erroneous idea of God as sky daddy. Atheists believe and try others to believe that the idea of God is a dogma of faith that belongs to religion, and that's why they compare fallaciously God with mythological creatures like unicorns and fictional characters. The idea of God is universal, like mathematics, because is obtained by reason and there has never been a society without it. If human life was discovered in any number of planets in all of them they would have in their culture the idea of God and in none of them they would know cristianity, islam or any other religion that dishonest humanity have made up in their own image and likeness to control scared and hopeful believers with the threat of eternal hell and the empty promise of eternal happiness, because there is not life without death and happiness without unhappiness. Likewise they would not know what are unicorns or fictional characters like Spiderman, but they could know the number pi. The difference between a lie and a mistake is that the mistake is rectified because is not done in bad faith. God is necessary for existence and if God didn’t exist atheists would not exist because nothing would exist. Could reality exist being everything created?
Content:
00:00 Introduction
00:13 Accident Fallacy, Destroying The Exception, Dicto Simpliciter, Spoken Simply, Sweeping Generalisation
00:38 Resort to Anger
00:54 Ad Populum, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Belief, Appeal to Majority, Appeal to Popularity, Bandwagon, Value of Community
01:18 Appeal to Novelty
01:33 Begging the Question, Chicken and Egg Argument, Circular Definition, Circular Reasoning
01:58 Complex Question, Double Blind, False Question, Loaded Question
02:20 Fallacy of Composition, Faulty Induction, Hasty Generalisation, Hasty Induction, Leaping to Conclusion, Statistical Generalisation
02:46 Fallacy of Division, Faulty Deduction
03:09 Converse Accident, Exception Fallacy, Inductive Generalisation, Insufficient Sample, Insufficient Statistics, Lonely Fact, Leaping to Conclusion, Stereotype
03:34 Bifurcation, Black And White Thinking, Either/Or, Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, False Dilemma, Polarisation
04:04 Arguing from Succession Alone, Assumed Causation, False Cause, Faulty Causation, Post Hoc, Questionable Cause
04:35 False Effect, Non Causa Pro Causa
04:58 Illicit Major
05:18 Illicit Minor
05:39 Insignificant Cause, Insufficient Cause
06:00 Misleading Vividness, Anecdotal Fallacy
06:25 Slippery Slope, Absurd Extrapolation, Butterfly Effect
06:49 Undistributed Middle
07:08 Biased Sample, Fallacy of Exclusion, Unrepresentative Sample
07:29 Ecological Fallacy, Ecological Inference Fallacy, Population Fallacy
07:54 Wishful Thinking, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
08:14 Appeal To Probability, Appeal To Possibility
08:35 Affirming a Disjunct, Alternative Disjunct, False Exclusionary Disjunct
09:08 Affirming the Consequent, Converse Fallacy, Confusion of Necessity and Sufficiency
09:26 Denying the Antecedent, Inverse Fallacy, Inverse Error
09:49 Existential Fallacy, Existential Instantiation
10:10 Accent Fallacy, Emphasis Fallacy
11:04 Amphiboly, Amphibology
11:21 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
11:44 Proof by Assertion, Alleged Certainty
11:59 Appeal to Common Practice
12:15 Appeal to Emotion
12:31 Appeal to Fear, Consequences, In Terrorem, Scare Tactics
12:53 Appeal to Force, Appeal to Violence, Ad Baculum
13:15 Appeal to Flattery
13:27 Appeal to Ignorance, Argument from Ignorance, Ad Ignorantiam, Burden of Proof
13:55 Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy
14:13 Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Mockery, Horse Laugh Fallacy, Ad Ridiculum
14:39 Appeal to Spite, Argumentum ad Odium
14:57 Appeal to Tradition, Ad Antiquitatem
15:13 Appeal to Trust
15:32 Against the Person, Ad Hominem
15:51 Cancelling Hypothesis, Conspiracy Theory
16:10 Equivocation, Semantic Equivocation, Fallacy of Four Terms
16:36 False Analogy, False Metaphor, Weak Analogy
17:02 Argument from Middle Ground, Argument from Moderation, False Compromise, False Equivalence, Golden Mean Fallacy, Splitting the Difference
17:26 Gambler’s Fallacy, Monte Carlo, Maturity of Chances
17:48 Ad Nauseam, Argument by Repetition, Argument from Nagging
18:12 -- BLINK BLINK INTERMISSION --
18:18 Secundum Quid, Ignoring Qualifications, Misuse of a Principle, In a Certain Respect and Simply
18:50 Many Questions Fallacy
19:14 Ignorance of Refutation, Ignoratio Elenchi, Irrelevant Conclusion, Missing the Point
19:39 Inconsistency
19:50 Personal Inconsistency, Tu Quo Que, You Too Fallacy
20:13 Discrediting, Poisoning the Well
20:33 Red Herring
21:10 Negation Introduction, Reductio ad Absurdum, Reduction to Absurdity
21.31 Concretism, Hypostatisation, Misplaced Concreteness, Reification
22:00 Social Conformity
22:20 Straw Man
22:38 Style Over Substance
23:00 The Fallacy Fallacy, Bad Reasons Fallacy, Argument to Logic
Amazing …This knowledge is like gold in todays zeitgeist. Thank you for your important work.
Thank you! 🙏
Exaustive list, brilliant examples! Thank you❤️
Make more of these Videos. I love them :)
Thank you for putting this together
Really wonderful and precise lecture. Thanks a lot.
Most welcome!
I LOVE this list and video! Saved to my fave videos! Thank you!
Awesome! Thank you!
Fallacy of the video: there's more fallacies that exist than this❤😂🎉 and we NEED need more from u. PLEASE
It is a FAIRLY, not absolutely, complete list 😜
DANG 😢😂 more please!wow
How do you desctibe the "not a true scottsman" fallacy?
00:13 It's a form of sweeping generalisation, or destroying the exception. The interlocutor attempts to dismiss variation and richness in a group by denying that people s/he perceives as lacking certain traits can also be members of that group. (No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.) It can also be seen as confusion between necessary and contingent traits. Whether all Scotsmen like their porridge sugared is arguably a contingent statement: it may be true, but it can equally be false, whereas a combination of things like ancestry, residency, and cultural affinity may be more strongly argued to be necessary traits to be considered a true Scotsman.
@@PhilosophyMT thank you.
Wow this is awesome. Thank you so much for this video sir
This is pure gold. I appreciate man.
You’re welcome 😉
@@babysharktv4562
3, Identify the fallacy: "Hospitals are dangerous places. Many people who visit them die in them".
*18:18** Secundum quid*
4, Identify the fallacy: " So the U.S says that all nations should respect human rights? What about the American Abu Graib prison scandal?".
*19:50** Tu quo que*
5, Identify the fallacy: "Atoms have free will, because humans have free will, and they are made of atoms".
*02:46** Fallacy of division*
6, Identity the fallacy: "Look at the evil religions have done through the world's history. Since we ban things that are evil, obviously religions should be banned."
*00:12** Sweeping generalisation*
7, Identify the fallacy: "Down with subsidised medical care! It is just what the Soviet communist states used to have."
*20:13** Poisoning the well*
8, Identify the fallacy: "We should not condemn aggression towards weaker people because it is a natural instinct of all animals, including humans.
*Naturalistic fallacy / is-ought problem*
Thank you very much
You are welcome
Bell reminds me of movie ole' boy the original Asian version that movie BLEW my mind!
I’m not familiar with it but I will watch it! Thanks!
Very nice video, thank you. There are a few bad examples though I thought - at 6:09 "immigrants brings diseases etc.." you need to say 'all immigrants.. ' or 'most immigrants' for it to be a fallacy because obviously there are some immigrant criminals etc. what percentage of immigrants need to be criminals before that stops being a fallacy? In your example I guess 100%
Also at 16:09 'harmful vaccines are how pharmaceutical companies get rich'. The wording at the start is ambiguous. Harmful vaccines could be read as 'vaccines that have proven to be harmful'. If it said, 'vaccines that have proven to be harmful has made them rich' it wouldn't be a fallacy. Perhaps it should be 'intentionally harmful vaccines is how they get rich'
Also at 19:40 'I'm not a racist but these immigrants are a plague'. If racism is 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior' then one may not be racist but also see that mass immigration is causing problems, or immigrants could be considered the downfall of an area or country or as a plague if you will. One can like locusts but consider a plague of them undesirable.
This rest of this video though I think is great. Could someone please correct me if I am wrong about the bad examples.
Oh my god thanks
thank you for the god example. some people are too scared to say it
This one stings a bit…😢 11:55
All in the name of logic
Whose synthetic voice is this? Can’t you at least get a voice actor. The subject deserves it.
Thanks for watching and for the feedback! This channel runs on pennies and good will. You can help us get voice actors by donating a coffee:
www.buymeacoffee.com/philosophymt
Thanks!
I know how to end religion with the truth, that would end atheism. I was religious in my early years to become atheist and finally i understand that God is all eternal and infinite reality. Atheism is a logical fallacy or error of reasoning that assumes God is sky daddy or the imaginary friend with a terrible temper living in the sky that do religious miracles interfering with reality for prayers and concludes wrongly that the creator of the creation doesn’t exist because it is impossible that sky daddy exists. I need the fallacy of atheism to be understood because potentially infinite lives would be saved with my knowledge. An example of the innumerable examples of the fallacy of atheism is the statement "God has an unalterable and perfect plan for every person, but you should still pray in a vain attempt to change it." attributed to David G. Mcafee. How atheists know God has an unalterable and perfect plan? What are the evidences that the creator of the creation has an unalterable and perfect plan? Religious people have told atheists who is God and atheists have believed them to conclude wrongly the creator of the creation doesn’t exist. To not be fallacious the statement should be "The religious concept of God has an unalterable and perfect plan for every person, but you should still pray in a vain attempt to change it.". To determine if something exists or not first we must know what is that something. Atheists believe God is who he is not and don't believe God exists, and they are wrong because they believe. An analogy would be that humanity believed horses have a horn on the head and do magic and atheists didn't believe horses exist and religious people believed in unicorns. Atheists don't see horses because they are looking for unicorns and religious people believe in unicorns because horses exist because nothing can be created from nothing. The evidence that God exists is the creation and is everywhere always because God is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist. The bible is only proof that Jesus Christ doesn't exist, like the Qurʾan is only proof that Allah doesn't exist, but to conclude God doesn’t exist atheism would have to provide arguments to refute the arguments for the existence of the creator of the creation. Humanity have misunderstood the nature of God personifying a metaphysical entity with disastrous consequences. Atheism can only conclude rationally that the religious concept of God doesn’t exist. Reality is what it is and when we die what is going to happen or not happen is regardless of our beliefs. Is it possible to be wrong? Is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong believing? Atheists believe it is impossible to be wrong because it is impossible that sky daddy exists and religious people should be cautious considering that the bible is nonsensical to religious people and atheists alike, except for christians that defend an idea that contradicts reality with faith and without arguments. "God" is the name in english that the creator of the creation has been given. God is by definition the creator of the creation. To ask to demostrate that the creator of the creation is God is like asking to demostrate that sweet food are desserts. When atheists ask to demostrate that the creator of the creation is God or to prove God's existence what they have in their mind is the erroneous idea of God as sky daddy. Atheists believe and try others to believe that the idea of God is a dogma of faith that belongs to religion, and that's why they compare fallaciously God with mythological creatures like unicorns and fictional characters. The idea of God is universal, like mathematics, because is obtained by reason and there has never been a society without it. If human life was discovered in any number of planets in all of them they would have in their culture the idea of God and in none of them they would know cristianity, islam or any other religion that dishonest humanity have made up in their own image and likeness to control scared and hopeful believers with the threat of eternal hell and the empty promise of eternal happiness, because there is not life without death and happiness without unhappiness. Likewise they would not know what are unicorns or fictional characters like Spiderman, but they could know the number pi. The difference between a lie and a mistake is that the mistake is rectified because is not done in bad faith. God is necessary for existence and if God didn’t exist atheists would not exist because nothing would exist. Could reality exist being everything created?
Man this guy talks fast
But Keith Richards probably will last billions of years.
Long live Keith Richards! 👑 🎸
sounds like a really bad Monty Python movie even if it is informative.