Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2022
- Explore the circular reasoning fallacy, which occurs when the end of an argument comes back to the start without having proven itself.
--
It’s 1990. A prospective student has filed a complaint about Virginia Military institute’s admissions policy that excludes women. The state argues that VMI’s single sex education is an “important governmental objective” and that the exclusion of women from VMI is essential to that objective. Can you spot the problem with this argument? Elizabeth Cox explores the circular reasoning fallacy.
Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER.
Support Our Non-Profit Mission
----------------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: bit.ly/TEDEdPatreon
Check out our merch: bit.ly/TEDEDShop
----------------------------------------------
Connect With Us
----------------------------------------------
Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/TEDEdNewsletter
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/TEDEdFacebook
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/TEDEdTwitter
Peep us on Instagram: bit.ly/TEDEdInstagram
----------------------------------------------
Keep Learning
----------------------------------------------
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/can-you-ou...
Dig deeper with additional resources: ed.ted.com/lessons/can-you-ou...
Animator's website: wearetogether.ca
----------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! Hiroshi Uchiyama, Mark Morris, Misaki Sato, EdoKun, SookKwan Loong, Bev Millar, Lex Azevedo, Michael Aquilina, Jason A Saslow, Dawn Jordan, Prasanth Mathialagan, Samuel Doerle, David Rosario, Dominik Kugelmann - they-them, Siamak H, Ryohky Araya, Mayank Kaul, Christophe Dessalles, Heather Slater, Sandra Tersluisen, Zhexi Shan, Bárbara Nazaré, Andrea Feliz, Victor E Karhel, Sydney Evans, Latora Slydell, Noel Situ, emily lam, Sid, Kent Logan, Thomas Mee, Maryann H McCrory, Mona Vakil, Victoria Dewey, Alex Lorang, Declan O'Donoghue, Blas Borde, John Hellmann, Poompak Meephian, Chuck Wofford, Daniel Erickson, frank goto, Jayson Hauschild, J D Wallace, Marq Short, Chen Jun Xiang, Adam Pagan, Behzad Farhanieh, Anders Sørheim and Wes Winn.
"And just because something is true, doesn't make it a proof of what is right" that's hella poetic love it👌
The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.
~ Murray Bookchin
@Seduction Psychologist no, morals are objective. Please use your brain before you comment.
@@demosthenes995 right and wrong are inherently subjective, but using an objective source(knowledge), we can make a more objective view of it
@@seductionpsychologist7013 I think you misunderstand a little my friend. What the quote is saying is that things can factually be the case in our society, but just because that is how things are currently that does not mean they inherently prove themselves to be moral.
Take the example used in the video: The law in that scenario allows for the exclusion of women, that is a fact. But just because that is how things are, does not by itself justify why that is the way things _should_ be.
@@demosthenes995 Morals are the most objective subjective thing there is. Killing is wrong: No question. The troley problem or doctor problem are more complicated
In short, circular reasoning is just your parent saying “Because I said so.”.
True af lol 😂
When a parent says "Because I said so" they're arguing that as the parents, they understand the situation better than the child.
There is a legitimate reasoning, it's just not one the child can understand.
@@TheGregamonster except now they need to prove that because they are parents they understand the situation better than the child and they never do that
@@TheGregamonster Explaining the reasoning to the child isn't difficult. The parents just first need to provide examples or context in terms that the child is familiar with, and then follow with an analogy to what they want to explain, so the child can follow their logic. If the child still doesn't understand, it's not because "oh, you'll grow up eventually", it's because the parents didn't do a good job explaining it in the first place.
Obviously, not every subject can be easily explained, but if one can explain something to a layperson without much issue, it's not a huge step to explain that same thing to a child unless the child is literally an infant.
Exactly
I love how every time the people gasp, it is not because they are seeing a demon, but because the demon is only wearing boxers
Oh. I thought he was wearing diapers. (Seriously!)
I imagine it is they gasp because a demon appears, but he just takes it as his clothing choice.
Haha
We really need more demons of Reasons in our society.
Agreed
Same
The world would be out of the gutter’s toilet
That’s begging the question
The doorbell at the end might just do that…
Are we just not going to talk about the fact that the Drake pointing meme appeared in an official Ted-Ed video?
What? Where??
@@aditisk99 1:41
@@jamhamtime1878 How did I miss that? 😂
I did spot that and I literally dropped the tab
Ikrr
another way to disccover whether an argument is based on circular logic is to test its reversibility. for example: I have high grades because i'm smart --> I’m smart because I have high grades.
Vs he died cuz he got shot...he got shot cuz he died
@@richardmckeithan5576 then that’s not circular logic
@@chromaduckie5907 His example was circular...mines wasnt
That only works for simple logic circles.
The one addressed in the video would pass this test because "Women are excluded because the collage's goals include single gender education" can't be reversed to "The collage's goals include single gender education because women are excluded."
A better test would be if the answer includes any additional information not already present in the question.
"Women are excluded because the collage's goals include single gender education" doesn't provide any new information not already present in the question "Why are women excluded?"
@@TheGregamonster ur comment makes sum kinda sense but it can be reversed
His example would make less sense without minor word changes(is vs was ect.)
The whole point is circular logic doesnt make sense as an arguement...and reversing it IN ESSENCE doesnt add or take away sense or information...i think ur example works just like his
He has been through so many fallacies. He can answer almost any question, he can figure out fallacies. But one question remains... HOW DOES HE KEEP FORGETTING HIS CLOTHES!
Edit: WAIT 1.3k LIKES WHAT
He doesn’t forget, he just wants to level the playing field each time 😂
@@danielkeith2071 more accurately he wants to shrink their ego.
@@VannyBeumer you have a point, but does it make it right?
we may never know
He doesn't own any clothes. The only times he would need clothes, there's someone to steal them from already there.
The demon of reasoning, not the hero we deserve, but the hero we needed
Not the hero we need, but the hero we need to be
No, he’s definitely both.
As a Collage student myself, i can confirm that i indeed cannot
Collage? I guess that consists of a lot of art classes.
Cannot spell you mean
Yup
There’s nothing wrong with making decisions based on assumptions, but there’s a time when assumptions needed to be challenged themselves
Can you provide an example?
@@blankblank1273 Assuming a tank full of shark-looking fish is dangerous, and decide not to jump in is a good start. ( Those fish might not be sharks and not all sharks are dangerous).
@@GeneLong14318 lol, as the video was talking about a militar institute i read "tank" as the vehicle. I was so confused reading about sharks, probably driven the tank. I could indeed assume that would be dangerous
@@jessicav931 Yes indeed, assumptions sooner or later need ti be challenged.
there's a lot wrong with making decisons based on assumptions. try that when driving. good luck. assumption based decision making has it's place but it should only ever be the absolute last solution if there is no other choice then to make a decision without waiting for proofing the facts.
I love that this has become a series
I can't wait to see them get all of the major fallacies it'll be a great educational tool then
It's been "becoming" a series a few years ago.
@@ximiea3778
That's pretty random, but even with your own criteria, you should've written "I love that this has become a series".
Assumptions like axioms are necessary in establishing an argument, but a faulty assumption should be questioned, especially one based in the answer which follows from the faulty assumption in the first place
Didn't expect to see you here Puzz!
@@Kalaish_Stanley me too
Ironically, it’s the worst kind of arguments I have to face. Somebody makes some boldfaced assumption and I have to prove it’s false instead of them having to prove it’s true. I have to read the books and do my research while they can just lay back and be presumed correct.
When the geocentric solar system concept was hypothesized, it was almost impossible to prove that it wasn´t true. The heliocentric model didn´t even explain things much better with weirdness of the retrograde motions until Kepler added ellipses to the model. Most well accepted theories of most religions and cultures before their society was able to get their hands on telescopes accepted the idea that the Earth was at the centre, and it would probably be an unscientific idea to accept otherwise, to leap from the solution that is simpler to the more complicated answer without a significant amount of evidence. Aristotle being bad at arguing wasn´t the death knell. Lenses were.
Think you are missing the forest for the trees, mate.
Potato
*Center of orbit cannot rotate around an object in the orbit* so Earth is not the center. Simple
Heliocentric model was used for calculation of eclipses etc by Indian astronomers in 500CE or something, much before Europeans. But Sadly Eurocentric school education in the world doesn't recognise this, even though almost all Indian and foreign origin historians studying Indian history know it
I have never heard a more correct statement.
the demon of reason also quite enjoys his memes. a man of culture
Begging the question is a little more than just circular reasoning. If someone was accused of murder in a courtroom, and the prosecutor said to the defendant, "So, why did you do murder him?" The prosecutor would be Begging the Question, because the prosecutor has yet to prove that the defendant is the murderer, but is making a statement which already assumes it. This isn't necessarily circular reasoning, but depending on the situation it can be. As someone who has graded many logic papers I would have to require my student to explain this distinction in order to get full points. So, 9/10 Demon of Reason.
This is a circular argument. You can tell it's a circular argument from the way it is.
You are correct because you are saying the truth
No, you're obviously wrong because this argument has no circularity
@@patrickdonaghy3009 You're right. Only circular arguments are correct because other arguments aren't circular.
No, you are clearly incorrect because of the falseness of your statement.
This is part of the reason the scientific method is so important: we strive to prove every assumption wrong so we don't fall in similar traps while still allowing us to build foundations for what to research next
i've never clicked so fast, i love this series so much
Same
I just love all the ted eds
Me too
Current farting
Did anyone notice their take on the Drake meme? 1:44 whoever animates these deserves a raise.
The Demon of Reason brings people to their senses. I like his sarcasm, his way of speaking and his intelligence.
THE GREATEST CHARACTER IN EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS OF ALL TIME
I love this Demon of Reasons episode with all my heart, please keep it going, it is so good
I like how we don't see him giving the clothes back to the judge he first took them from.
He kinda did tho since he isn't wearing them but I get what you mean.
@@RocketMonke69420 he just discarded them in the null space within those portals. judge has to buy new clothes now
@@Monochrome2004 He discarded the judge as well.
He probably gave them back since he gives back the white collar thing to the other judge
@@thearchrock4842 this is why the judge doesnt have a name, he's been pulled from the timeline. this video is the only evidence of his existence
I thought the "admission fallacy" was a general thing, that happens at admissions, this is just a reasoning fallacy that happened once
I thought we'd be asked to solve something at some point.
This comes just in time. Im about to argue with my university that I do not want to pay 3000$ (im not even joking) for an internship course while I already can apply for an internship on my own :)
I will never get bored of the Demon of Reason. I love the animation style and voice, its great!
Of all the series on this channel, this one is my favourite. Please keep it rolling. Great job by all creators. 👍
Yay! I thought the series was done, and I was so sad! Keep it up! And don’t give up on the demon of reason
Great video as always, Demon of Reason is always a nice time but can you please bring back the "Ah, that's better.", I loved it!
These are some of the best videos you guys do
"7-1" Doesn't add to 9 because Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself. His son was enrolled in VMI at the time. That's interesting.
I was wondering about that.
This is common judicial ethical code. Any justice in his place would have done this. Ketanji Brown Jackson will recuse herself from the affirmative action decision against harvard because she sat on the board.
Excellent episode and I am excited for more of this.
Step 1: ask the state of virginia if they have green eyes.
Step 2: ask them what the passcode is.
Step 3: tell them to apply for the infinite hotel.
Step 4: yes.
1:42
That Drake meme reference is just iconic😂
I love this series so dang much
The demon of reason is my favourite recurring character on TED-Ed! I hope he returns one day.
I'm watching this video because I'm watching it.
I wanna watch the video because i clicked on it, thing that i did to watch the video. Because i want to.
Too many people accept assumptions (or opinions) as facts these days, usually because the people spewing these “facts” have somehow convinced people that they are “an authority” of some sort… especially if they appear on TV in some capacity. (Honestly all opinion pieces on the news should have big flashing red letters over the top, “This is an opinion segment, not a news segment.”
We need more of this. Excellent
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
This was three months ago. What pandemic are you talking about?
We can't get enough of these videos
It's important to use logic becuase logic is important.
Actually, it’s important to use logic because using logic is important.
But why is logic important?
@@blackholedividedbyzero because it gives a better understanding to a situation
@@fakeplayer3308 and what does it mean to "understand" something?
@@blackholedividedbyzero basicaly, to know about something
Heck yeah! I check back for new videos every day and the #1 thing I hope for is new episodes featuring the Demon of Reason!
Dear Ted-ed,
Please continue this series.
~a fan~
O my god this is something that REALLY excites me. I literally LOVE logic and philosophy. THANK. YOU. I understand this 😘
I don't know I didn't see where the fallacy was because I was waiting for the university to make it's argument and in my mind it didn't. I guess that was the point?
I really like these kind of videos. More of these please
This is such an amazing series
Loving the animation style! Very nostalgic somehow
I just realized at 1:43, they use the Drake Meme Template on a TED-Ed video.
I love this series so much
Best series by ted, so best series of video of all RUclips
hurray! it's the famous demon of reason once again, thanks for making videos with him a series
Love these. Please make more!
I need more of these 😭❤️
I love this series
I don't have time to watch this, I have SAT like exams in my country in one week. I would watch this later.
The Demon of Reason must wear clothes to make these arguments.
How do I know? The Demon of Reason always makes these arguments while wearing clothes.
correlation ≠ causation
one of my favorite series ...
Need more videos like this.
Is there a way to call a false argument that is assume to be right because the person who made it was right before?
Like the validations for misogyny from ancient philosophers.
Yes, they are right in many statements they have made, but as the world has changed, those particular points are not accurate.
I think it could be the Argument from authority: the opinion from an authority is taken as an evidence to support an argument
Argument from reputation. Its the same logic as why people would respect the opinion from a person who got their degree from a respected university.
Argument from Antiquity.
It is an argument from authority. It asserts that respected individuals are infallible.
More generally, arguments from authority are a type of ad hominem, as they attempts to derive the truth-value of a statement from the character of its speaker.
demon of reason: i fear no arguement
demon of reason: but that thing (because i said so) , it scares me
loved this(as always)💜💜
I love watching these with my kids
"Circular reasoning" is actually a common in mathematical proofs. Even I sometimes do that.
then you're doing your proofs wrong, proofs must be explained by axioms, not by themselves
@@harrietjameson Trust me! I'm great at writing math proofs! In fact, I actually just recently wrote a proof on something having to do with real analysis that I was curious about (no circular reasoning was implemented in the process of writing the proof!)! It's just that I make that mistake very little amounts of times without me realizing it, until later!
Anyone else notice the Drake meme reference at 1:42?😂😂
omg that doorbell at the end sounded exactly like mine in real life, i panicked for a moment.
If there's anything I can thank COVID it's that college admissions were extremely easier then if I did it under normal circumstances
I agree and disagree. In some ways it was easier, but I feel every school only increased in competitiveness. And under Covid circumstances, it was harder to achieve as well or the same things as if there were less social restrictions in place. Like I lost some internship opportunities because Covid and other things that shut down entirely instead of going online. Also with school I felt it at least got harder, because my needs weren’t met by online learning. So it all depends! I still got into very good schools though, so I imagine it’s a case by case issue.
@@cherie..cherry Glad you managed to get into good schools despite the challenges!
I honestly could not disagree more, might just be a regional issue
Ah, I know I can outsmart the college admissions fallacy because I am smart enough to see the fallacy...
I was watching all of these demon of reason videos and then you post a new one
Thanks!1!
yay! more episodes
loved the way this enchanting entity was rooting for the women's right
Too bad the modern day Supreme Court would just give women's rights the finger. They've done it at least twice already, so if VMI wanted to do a similar case they would probably get it overturned and win.
"You modern humans may understand that the planets actually orbit the sun."
Bold for the Demon of reason to assume every modern human does that.
Always love to see our good friend!
Is there a logical fallacy in his assumption that it is okay for him to steal peoples clothing because they are being illogical. Just because someone may be doing something wrong in one area, does not mean that you are allowed to correct your own negligence (a constant and nearly malicious lack of clothing) at their deficit.
The animators do that because it is funny and it is not to be taken seriusly
@@fakeplayer3308 I think the original commentor is also joking, lol
*Women shouldn't be allowed to attend VMI because it goes against tradition*
1996 SCOTUS: "That's circular reasoning"
*Women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions because it goes against tradition*
2022 SCOTUS: "Understandable have a nice day"
No, women should not be allowed to get abortions because abortion is child murder.
Not "because it goes against tradition" but because it ends an innocent life.
FTFY
Also that wasn't even close to the reasoning. SCOTUS also didn't ban abortions.
SCOTUS is there to interpret the constitution. The constitution doesn't have anything to say on the matter of the constitution, therefore they repealed it again, leaving the issue to the states again
Strawman
Woah! I come home from school to find the Demon of Reason is back!! Thank you :)
I love the video. I also see a bit of Aku in the Demon of Reason
Perfect example would be "Transwomen are women, because they identify as women" but what is this thing they are identifying as then?
congrats. this is step 1. now submit a definition of women and, while you're at it. would you like the know the definition they mean when tran women identify as women?
I think there should be more Demon of Reason videos because we clearly need more demon of reason videos. I will not be elaborating.
This is incredibly useful
1:42 is why i love ted ed so much
Idk, nice video, but the title is misleading, this isn't a riddle, it's just a video on how circular reasoning is bad because circular reasoning is bad
Nice to look back on a time when logic and reason were considered in Supreme Court decisions.
Lmfao, it's still a bad ruling even with the bad argument, simply because men and women are different. This isn't logical, not when it discards key facts about reality
Beautiful video 👍
Love this guy so much
Hmmm... this seems more like glossing over an actual argument to make a claim of circular reasoning. An actual argument is likely to be along the lines that, for military purposes, they have intense physical standards; because of biological differences, no women can meet those standards. But we don't hear the actual argument. We hear the writers' straw-man.
Yes, this definitely felt like click-bait to a strawman attacking video. They didn't even address why not hold the same physical standards for women which would be a relevant and more interesting obvious question to make.
Exactly that's the sole reason this video was made
Was that the argument actually advanced by the university though? That non-circular arguments could be made is irrelevant to the question of whether any given argument is circular in nature. It's possible to make bad, circular arguments for things that are nonetheless true - to have an argument that is wrong and invalid despite holding the correct conclusion. In fact, it's not just possible, it's common.
@@Kevin-cf9nl
I do not know what argument was actually advanced. However, we are talking about lawyers, who debate as a profession. It is highly likely that they avoided such blatant circular reasoning, particularly when a novice like myself can provide an argument that, at least, sounds reasonable on the surface.
In a rather more blunt manner, I just do not trust TedEd to do its opposition justice. The authors and the curators of the channel oppose those admission standards. You never see the "demon of reason" expose a fallacy made in service of a position that TedEd supports or for the "demon of reason" to give a better argument.
@@PvblivsAelivs This was clearly one of the main reasons why the supreme court decided the way it did, therefore one of the main arguments of the opposition. The goal of this video isn't to explain every nuance of this situation, it's to provide an easy example for a super short video about a simple fallacy.
Student debt is the only debt that can't be wiped by Bankruptcy...What an incentive
If I file for bankrupt, they can take some of my possessions. Knowledge can't be taken, so it's fair enough for me. It's not the taxpayers fault that you are so incompetent you can't even make a living and pay your debt with a degree.
Ah how wonderful. Another day with Demon of Reasons is another day I got to learn about fallacy
Love that Reason either stole some poor bride's wedding dress that one time during the "apples and oranges" video or has the ability to create clothes out of thin air, either way meaning he could just teleport or create clothes from elsewhere, but instead chooses to embarrass the people he's lecturing
The best circular reasoning example I can think of is a person saying their religion is correct, because their religious text says so. “God created the earth, because the Bible says so”. A Muslim person could cite the Quran a Hindu person could cite the Vedas. A person needs evidence outside their religion’s text to prove their religion. The fields of study are not consistent with any world religion, that’s why they can’t cite it.
Very solid example
That's not actually circular reasoning. You can imagine a document that explains something in great detail, including how to verify the document's findings. Saying gravity is real because the gravity paper says so isn't circular reasoning, it simply doesn't explain why. In other words, it's a non-sequitor.
"The sky is blue because I looked at it this morning"
@@TheFinalChapters How does the bible provide evidence of the events that took place? A scientific paper on gravity provides evidence of a claim and has reproducibility. There are countless examples in the bible that are entirely unreproducible, and stand solely on the fact that someone said it happened.
@@linearmemories It doesn't, and I never said it did.
But whether the document's claims are valid or not, pointing merely at the paper's existence as an explanation is a non-sequitor, not circular reasoning.
The bible is true because the bible says so.
Best example of circular reasoning I know to this day.
Yes, but that’s religion. Religion is based off belief more than anything else.
@@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield Belief can still have internal reason. Like "I believe in the Bible because when I pray I can feel God's presence". I don't believe that, but it isn't a logical fallacy.
Exactly. I've seen so many Christians and Muslims (in the case of Quran) who argue like that. It's really sad how religion makes you braind**d like this.
cant wait to finish the vid
You touch on the is-ought fallacy here, which I think is important enough to be named, or even to get it's own video.
We need this demon of reason more than ever, now that Roe v Wade got overturned.
That was overturned due to technical legal reasons, people should look into it rather than assume it's an attack on rights
#bringdeamonofreasonback
I needed another one of these demon of reason videos from TedEd
I love the demon of reason; today's episode is a banger
These Demons missed the point. VMI's restriction to male students had a CRUCIAL public interest - providing officers for the military. And not just any officers, the culture was set up to promote developing the special talents and temperaments for COMBAT leadership.
Such officers are so valuable, that even if only 1 in 10 VMI grads became such officers it worth having the other 9 just to create the right environment for the 1.
But couldn't women be such helpers?History had emphatically responded in the negative. The first significant cohort graduated only months before 9/11.
Despite 20 years, $2.2 TRILLION, and thousands of lives lost, American officers are now so combat INCOMPETENT, the Afghanistan War ended in total defeat for American forces. Shamefully, our own officers failed to match the tactical and strategic abilities of a poverty-stricken rabble so ill-equipped that many were firing rifles older than they were.
It's clear now that the correct response to losing the lawsuit should have been to shut VMI down rather than afflict the US military with such rotten officers. The campus should have been sold and the resources directed elsewhere.
...you think you lost the war in Afghanistan because women ruined the army? Really?
It’s like if a judge, say, argued that abortions shouldn’t be widely legal, because there isn’t a tradition of abortion being widely legal
As odd as that sounds; that's the reasoning we have for which guns we're allowed to buy and the court came up with it.
@@joshuahudson2170 no surprise there either.
Guns should be legal because guns are legal.
Abortion shouldn’t be legal because it wasn’t legal before.
Private property is necessary so that we can protect private property.
It’s all always the same argument.
Abortions should be ilegal becuase it's murder.
There are other valid arguments for disallowing abortions.
Taking only the flawed argument to refute a claim is in and of itself a fallacy
@@blankblank1273 where did I do that?
I mean, so far I’ve yet to hear a good argument against abortion, but in this comment I was just commenting on the leaked draft of the Supreme Court decision