Logical Fallacies, Explained.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/jaredhenderson. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
If you want to support my work, subscribe on Substack: jaredhenderson.substack.com
Today we're talking about logical fallacies. These are common patterns of reasoning cause us to make mistakes in how we argue or think about the world. Examples include: ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, and the gambler's fallacy.
Join my Discord server: / discord
→ Video Gear
Mic: amzn.to/3Uw7ZVw
Recorder: amzn.to/3Tz1uQp
Camera: amzn.to/3Ust3MT
Camera (upgrade): amzn.to/3EFGW4e
Lens: amzn.to/3WXbAhd
Lens (upgrade): amzn.to/3SA49KM
These are affiliate links with Amazon. The channel earns a commission from each purchase - but it doesn't cost you anything.
If you've watched my channel for any amount of time, you might know I made a similar video last year. I made a few mistakes in that video - including say Richard Nixon walked on the moon - and I knew I wanted to make a longer video about this topic. So here it is.
Now, tell me: what's your favorite fallacy?
Richard Nixon walked on the moon?? I never knew that! ;)
I prefer to believe that Nixon did walk on the moon, and to think that you were wrong to think you were wrong.
Thank you, Jared, for confirming here that Richard Nixon was indeed an astronaut. I'm glad I paid attention this time!
I look forward to your even more valuable video of examples of how to respond to each of these fallacies by turning the light back on the more logical path one ultimately shares with their interlocutor, rather than being provoked to say "you just made such-and-such fallacy," which helps neither party nor the potential for shared understanding.
Too many people learn logical fallacies so they can point them out as a weapon in debate. The value is to eradicate them in your own arguments and be able to meet fallacious arguments in others with superior ideas and logic.
Hear, hear!
Why not do both?
@@alelzarterl212 because statements like "that's X fallacy* are weak surface level arguments and are often used incorrectly. Someone skilled in dialectic or debate can redirect and recenter the argument and simply not play into sloppy or fallacious arguments.
People who use logical fallacies often don't know that they are doing so, and finger wagging with these terms does nothing to advance the conversation. Just as often, those who accuse their interlocutor of these fallacies do so because they simply don't like the argument and feel like it's how they can control the conversation. You can see this anecdotally in many online debates, with logical fallacy terms being used, often incorrectly, like a shiny new toy as a measure to get the upper hand.
Personally, every time I hear someone respond to an argument or position with "that's an ad hominem" or "you're straw manning me" they immediately take on a losing position, and more bluntly, they sound whiny and childish. The best debaters, in my opinion, can recognize the fallacies and take the upper hand without calling them out. When you see that done well, it's like poetry in motion. More often than not, weaponizing these terms is performative and ineffective.
I would say the exception to that standard would be in conversations between two people who have built a rapport and mutual respect and point out weaknesses in their conversational partner's arguments to HELP their partner to improve and sharpen their arguments. In those cases, the person usually is willing to receive the constructive criticism and be more cognizant of their blind spots.
Essentially, it defines the difference between people who debate to win, using whatever rhetorical tools or gotchas they can, and those who do so to share in a conversation with an open mind. If you enter a debate with the sole purpose to convince the other person or audience without considering for a moment that you yourself could be convinced, you've missed the point.
If you don't point them out in a debate then the individual you're debating will not realize they're using a logical fallacy.
@@EverythingIsPhotogenicwhat in the chatgpt?
your point on the appeal to flattery was so excellent. you are so intelligent and also handsome!
I now agree with whatever else you believe
😂
😂
I really appreciate the thoroughness of your list. It's really nice to be able to put a name to many fallacies I knew, but couldn't properly identify. Thank you.
That was a good idea for a video. I've been more or less pasively listening to your videos, because I have no idea about philosopy yet, but this feels like a very handy thing to know.
Been watching you for a while jared. You have truly inspired me to learn philosophy and you make you make everything really easy to understand you would definitely make a great teacher!
Hi Jared! You got me into philosophy! You and Park Notes.
Just learned these in my philosophy course! (i learned a few more from this video). This was awesome!! My class is over now, but I sorta get to stay in the area just by your videos 🥰 ima miss it a lot 🥹
Can you mention some books about:
(1).Philosophy of Mind
(2).Theory of Knowledge
(3).Applied philosophy
I need a cheat sheet!
Great video.
Brilliant! Thanks for this Jared.
Great summation of the common logical fallacies.
Great vid love the topics!
I have learned a lot from the video. If I am not mistaken, the majority of logical fallacies are informal logical fallacies. Thank you.
The majority of the ones we give names to are informal fallacies - they are basically bad principles we use as premises in arguments. Formal fallacies are more structural and we don't give them names very often.
@@_jared Thank you for explaining the distinction between informal and formal fallacies. It's fascinating how informal fallacies, rooted in flawed principles of reasoning, are more commonly named and discussed in everyday contexts. This insight into logical errors helps illuminate broader discussions about how reasoning and argumentation shape societal perspectives and decisions. I appreciate your thoughtful response!
Hi Jared, can you do the thing with the video where each part of the video timeline is cut to the name of the fallacy, so that its easier to quickly find one later if i want to come back to the video? I dunno how people do it, but its really helpful. Thank you for listening. Great work.
I think RUclips will generate these. If they don't, I'll add them tonight.
@@_jared Ah got it, I didn't know that. Thank you so much.
yes, time stamps in the video description are very helpful
This is like going to confession, and the beauty is that somehow I feel smarter and a load has been lifted after watching. One thing I noticed while watching is how quickly I aligned myself with the perspective of not committing fallacy sins and yet I commit every single one on a regular basis. Is there a fallacy for assuming that I am always pretty much right? Like, even if I'm wrong its on the way to being right, so I don't feel the sting of being wrong.
Great video.
I remember reading about a statistical analysis of basketball, arguing that it was possible to detect when a player had a hot hand. They called it the Hot Hand Fallacy Fallacy 😆
Awesome!
Love it Jared. When you say inference is it the logical connection or relationship between the premises and conclusion? In other words, with fallacies there is a weak or non existent connection/inference between the premises and conclusion?
I would say an inference is like a cognitive move that we make. A good inference is one where the premises support the conclusion. A bad inference is one that’s lacking that support. So a bad inference in this case is one that relies on a bad principle (like a fallacy) or uses an invalid pattern of reasoning.
I enjoy these concepts but unfortunately the only people in my life that have used these in conversation were very manipulative/intended to make people feel less intelligent than them via debate. Still very interesting stuff!
I sometimes struggle with the appeal to authority fallacy. It's just hard to know what else to do other than to appeal to authority when you're in a situation where you aren't qualified to assess the premises of an argument but still need to make a decision based on said argument.
It's helpful to introduce another term: defeasible inferences. A good defeasible inference is rationally compelling but not deductively valid. (That's a gloss of the definition the Stanford Encyclopedia gives, for transparency.)
'Experts say X, so therefore X' might be a decent defeasible inference. But it isn't as reliable as a deductive argument.
@@_jared I'm mildly embarrassed I hadn't heard of that term before. But it definitely clarifies things for me. Thanks!
Thanks for the video Jared! I recognized the image you used for the fallacy names from my copy of Don Quixote. Is there any reason you chose that image?
I wanted to bring to mind the idea of tilting at windmills - thinking you’re on to the truth, but being misguided.
Pertaining to Appeal to Tradition, what about the Lindy effect?
You should create an AI repository cheat sheet of all content. Refer to the podcast Founders for more details. Great content. Subscribed.
Great video! Not sure I agree with your equivocation example though. Law in the first premise doesn't necessarily mean legal law. It seems to be refering to law in general or the essence of law. I think Aquinas' definition of law suffices to clear up the confusion: a law is an ordinance of reason promulgated by a legitimate authority (one who has care over the community) for the common good of the community. Premise one clearly states promulgation by a legitimate authority as a necessary aspect of law, thus agreeing with Aquinas. Premise two states that there are observable patterns or an order in nature (what we call laws of nature). If a law is always promulgated by an authority and laws of nature are properly laws then we can we can say that there is a law giver of nature. I'm not sure where the equivocation is. Also at least in Aquinas' view, while we can certainly disinguish between kinds of law (Eternal, Divine, Natural, and Human) they all seem to be connected by the essence of Law, which is derived from the Eternal Law. For instance, the Natural Law he defines as the rational creature's participation in the Divine Law. Human laws are the application of the Natural Law in concrete human situations. Importantly, these are only laws insofar as they participate in the Natural Law. For example a human law that enslaves other human beings is not a real law because it directly contradicts the Natural Law of inherent human dignity. Thus such a law ought to be disobeyed in order to serve the higher Law. In summary the arguement is valid because the premises do lead to the conclusion. It is up to everyone to debate whether it is sounds, i.e. whether the definition of law in premise one and/or the the statement of the observability of Natural Law in the second premise are correct.
Well if it's not an equivocation you would instead have to argue for the truth of the first premise in your/Aquinas interpretation of the word 'law', which, to say the least, definitely cannot be taken at face value anymore. Most likely you would, for example, have to defend social darwinism to accept it, because how is for example the fact that all living things die eventually "for the good of the community"?
Language can change our perception of reality but it can't change whether something exists or not.
Just in time, I have an exam tomorrow
I'm left with the feeling that there are not thinking spaces free of fallacies, that logical operations are very narrow and limiting representations of the world. Have I fallen into a emotional trap or there is a way to argue in favor of logic?
I wonder if certain logical fallacies are not always fallacious. For instance, if i'm debating someone on global warning, i think it would be reasonable for me to mention the number of experts who agree that global warming is caused by humans. After all, a climatologist would have a deeper understanding of the subject than me. Although i should support it with additonal evidence and not immediately discount countering evidence because it is against the experts.
Similarily, i think emotional arguments are not enough to make an argument but if it is already sound than maybe an emotional argument could be a good call to action, like with an ethical issue.
Using comparison to create a feeling of being better than , comparison kills joy.😢
What is the name of the art piece on the white shirt ?
I’m curious too!
The t-shirt is plain. The fallacy titles are set over an image by Daumier of characters Don Quixote and Sancho Panza (from Spanish writer Cervantes novel of the 1600s)
@@ohsebseb thanks!
So, in a nutshell, if we try to prove our argument in any way other than the propositions of the argument, it is a fallacy.
I can't connect to your Discord. I receive the phone verification but I don't know the password.
Have you done one on philosophical razors?
As you can tell from my beard, I don't know much about razors.
@@_jaredcmon go through your collection of razors with an assortment of different philosophy phrases printed on the handle
500th like, you’re welcome world.
Thank you Sir for this video 💐 I would disagree with that the usage of the word "law" must be an equivocation; it could be used in the meaning of "regulation" in both statements, the laws of nature regulate nature as much as the laws of the state regulate the state (in fact the laws of the state are broken much more frequently than the laws of nature), and if someone visits a country and see that the ways people act in their transactions have certain patterns (thus regulated) then it is rightful to assume that these patterns/regulations are laws given by someone, even if he has no idea who that lawgiver is.
He's clearly not saying that there isn't a more abstract concept of law that doesn't encompass both human-made laws and natural laws. The example in question is just that: a _particular example_ of when the term 'law' _is_ used with two different meanings. Or else, he would most likely add, used in a way that makes the truth-value of the second premise in need of some proof.
Plato highlighted appeal to authority as bad in book one of the Republic. He was not completely against it.
No naturalistic fallacy! Balance is restored.
Howdy 🤠
I've been documenting a few more fallacies and rhetorical tricks that have come up. I haven't seen them talked about anywhere but figure it might be worth it to share some.
Appeal to AI: the belief that because an AI said or created something it has some representation of its value. Now I'm not talking about AI art necessarily but assuming I were to give you a decent argument from an
AI some people might ad hominem against the argument off of nothing more than it being an AI. And the inverse also happens. People will think that AI will inevitably lead to world peace or that something is true just because an AI said it. Now there's certainly something to be said about AI art but I have this semi-intuition that this is really more about demonizing the technology then looking at it on an objective basis. And to me this brings to mind Arthur Danto's institutional theory of art. He argues that art is in and of itself more a cultural term bestowed by the "art world" then an objective one that anyone can recognize in something. At least thats my current understanding of it.
There's also what I call Dumbmining. Dumbmining is a rhetorical technique where you take a subtle dig at something someone says often by repeating a word back to them as if its nonsensical or stupid. As an example.
Me: And that's why philosophy is important.
Other person: So you said all that because you believe philosophy is ImPorTaNt?
And as you can see here dumbmining also happens in text. I often see it in RUclips comments sections where someone regurgitates a perfectly legitimate argument but by interjecting uppercase and lowercase asymmetry into the word they're able to persuade the public that what the person said was dumb in some way. Dumbmining is often used most by video essayists on RUclips from what I've seen but this rhetorical strategy is so powerful that I've noticed people who watch a lot of video essayists tend to unconsciously replicate it.
There is one fallacy I've been studying lately and I'm still researching it because it seems like it may be a formal fallacy. I call it a one way fallacy and if I get further in the research I'd love to share notes.
are you back to your job
My fave: paralepsis.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy
Great video with a bit of irony. You kind of straw-manned "defund the police".
He isn’t making any generalization and trying to claim the argument he gave is the same as everyone who supported defund the police.
He is simply giving an example set of positions and behavior that if someone held would be an example of motte and Bailey.
It's not an appeal to authority to appeal to actual experts on the topic being discussed. I'm not sure how you got this wrong? Literally every website I have looked up says that appealing to actual experts isn't a fallacy.
An argument could be devoid of logical fallacies and still be wrong.
Sounds like you are using an appeal to authority
Logically speaking, an authority saying something doesn’t make it true or false.
In the messy real world we think probabilistically and an authority is indeed valid evidence that will have weight in our reasoning, but it still doesn’t make something true.
If I am aware of the expert and their arguments and I have a compelling deductive argument to the contrary, simply stating that the expert disagrees with me will not hold much weight.
@@noahgeller8513 What? Please point out the specific part where I am appealing to authority?
@@tobiasyoder The point is that appealing to an actual authority on a topic isn't a fallacy. The conclusion could still be wrong but it isn't fallacious to appeal to those figures.
@@alelzarterl212 it would be a fallacy to say “all physics textbooks say that f=ma, therefore if is true”. However it is fine to say “all physics textbooks say that f=ma which is weighty evidence that it is likely true”.
Even if the authority is credible, it doesn’t make something true.
I wonder how many conservative lawyers or politicians know about fallacies, and if they would dismiss them as fake news if confronted with them while making an argument.
About as many as liberal lawyers and politicians.
Always remember just because something is logically valid does not mean it is true. Logic is overrated.
No views 14 seconds
That is the appeal to popularity fallacy
You have a talent to make interesting topics boring.
I disagree so much that my brain read it in the reverse meaning.
Learned too much actually. So much I can’t remember any🥲