Logical Fallacies Part 1: Formal and Informal Fallacies
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- In learning about logic, we've come to understand how an argument involves two or more premises followed by a conclusion. When the conclusion does not follow from the premises, this is an invalid argument. In such a case, a logical fallacy has been committed. This can be the case due to a faulty coherence between the premises or from external factors, but either way it just means bad reasoning. What are formal fallacies vs. informal fallacies? Let's get a better understanding of this concept.
Script by Luca Igansi
Watch the whole Philosophy/Logic playlist: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Psychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Biology/Genetics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDave...
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDave...
Geology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGeo
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Its about time you started a logical fallacy series, boy I wonder if listening to Flat Earth Goobers while Drunk inspired this a bit
Good work as always Professor Dave
Took the bro long enough.
He had a short video about them "Stop Misuing Logical Fallacies" but he decided to make it into a series. 🤔That's how I discovered him
they are listening. but the problem is that their arguments boil down to “nuh-uh!” or “That makes no sense.” But yet they fail to propose a model. As a matter of fact, they’ve been pressed so hard that David Weiss on a podcast said “We don’t have a model.”
Of course, these claims should be further expanded on. But of course, they won’t.
The scientist claims the earth is a sphere with objective and observable data. But the flat earther says its not a sphere and goes silent afterwards. You need to PROVE IT.
I think he said he has these backlogged so this releasing so close was probably a coincidence
i want this to be a long series, not only just to watch and learn, but to send the link to a specific video to someone who's using the same biased logic against me
This isn't necessarily biased logic, it just happens to be invalid since it doesn't follow the premisses.
This is shaping up to be my favourite series yet.
Super excited for this series. Lets get this vid trending!
Professor Dave is turning into a one man university. Plato and Aristotle would be proud.
I LOVE the first example. RUclipsr mortality is now my favorite fallacy. 😂
Fuuuuuuuck yes, dude! This is the best channel on RUclips, and always outdoing itself. Thank you, Dave.
I discovered you 3-4 years ago from your video on logical fallacies. That's so cool you decided to make a series about them 👍🔥
I love logic and reason. Looking forward to part 2.
Professor Dave since you're making alot of videos debunking anti-science public figures, can we get a RFK video series?
holy shit that's so many videos
back in the day i was making a huge project about educating people about this stuff and i found its a fruitless endeavor, as even in the comments people would make insanely outlandish mistakes.
Coming up on 3.5M subs, Professor Dave! Been enjoying your content since just before CoVID. You continue to impress! Many thanks for all you hard work and for staunchly defending logic, fact, theory, and law against the moron charlatans!
I fell like that after all the anointments caused by dumb, arrogant and narcissistic people, he had to make a series like this.
And the crackpots. Don't forget the crackpots.
You're really trying to tell me Joe the non-RUclipsr is mortal? My entire worldview has been annihilated.
Great start to a really promising series. I look forward to the next one. Thank you Prof. Dave.
Thanks Dave. Excellent series of tutorials. ❤
Professor Dave's selection of stock images is elite
I used to think people using fallacious reasoning were being malicious. While some are, the majority of people just don't know better.
I find it kind of sad to see someone who only has fallacy backing them because it's likely they were exposed to the arguments and couldn't disprove them (because the throughline from the argument to the end point doesn't exist) or couldn't disregard them (because they were espoused by an authority).
Another banger.
I'm excited for the rest of the series!
He knows how to destroy the flat Earth
Professor Dave debunks 😂
amazing Idea! I was waiting for something like this for a while.
Your graphics game is as finely tuned as a Discworld dwarf's most fiddly engineering tool. It's like that one in a set of lockpicks that that pushes the pin into place as the others hold your brain open so the knowledge can slide into place. Love your work. Thx Dave.🤙🖖
Cant thank you enough for you videos, thankyou.
Thank you for making us smarter
Thanks Dave!!
Less GOOOOO 🔥 been wanting a series like this. Good idea
I'm going to watch this later, but just popping in to say this stuff from my college Logic class gave me an invincible BS detector. Great topic, can't wait for more like it.
This would have been super helpful if i saw this before my Discrete Math Final
I just realized now the intro sings: "He knows a lot about all kinds of stuff". I thought it sang "he knows a lot about science stuff"
Two different versions
Thank you 🙏🏼 man
I'm studying for freshman logic and critical thinking course in Ethiopia 😮
i like this.. can't wait for more
Good job making clear that an argument can be invalid while all its assertions are true. My favourite is something like
1. Grass is green;
2. Prof Dave is a YTer;
3. So Berlin is the capital of Germany.
It took me a while myself to realize that demonstrating a logical fallacy doesn't mean that a conclusion is false. Since then I've quite often seen "Logical fallacy so your conclusion is untrue!"
A pet pieve of mine is when 'flat out lies' are referred to by the media as 'conspiracy theories'; as if a theory is in play, when of course there is not.
Better finish this series soon. I have a feeling there's going to be an executive order that outlaws teaching critical thinking a couple months from now.
Oh, this will be a very interesting series
Incredible How professor Dave can drop the mic on pseudoscienstists in every area of knowledge.
Thank you so much! No non-sense, all value.
Prof Dave, this is an important series! (1) Can you use contemporary words to widen your audience as this is such an important topic i.e. fallacies -> mistakes? (2) I always thought that when you debate/debunk a conspiracy step 1 is technical, but step 2 is the logic mistake / trick that is being used. IMO step 2 is more powerful for the audience, but very difficult to do, especially in a live debate. In court, if your opponent sees you highlight the fault / trick in logic, they are forced to rethink every response. it is a very powerful technique, when there is deceit.
Most fallacies I see aren't mistakes.
Formal logic was my favorite class ever as a philosophy student. I still do proofs sometimes in my spare time lol
Once you understand how fallacies work, they are quite legitimately everywhere lol
I think its just human nature, its almost impossible to have an argument without using some sort of fallacy. Just because you have used a fallacy doesnt make you wrong.
@ Absolutely! It just means your conclusion doesn’t actually follow from your premises, but your conclusion could still be true. And it’s absolutely common to fall in to, often it’s even intuitive.
5:40 The procedure would need to be well defined for every type of premises in order an argument to be valid by procedure alone. There are many different procedures, affirming the precedent, denying the consequent, etc. but only 2 truth values.
If someone defines validity with respect to procedures, this will likely get very messy and complex. It also holds the procedures as a given without any justification because they are foundational to the validity of an argument.
Contrast this to defining validity as an implication, where true premises guarantee that the conclusion is also true. Using this definition is much simpler but it does require background expertise regarding the conclusions and premises. Under this definition, any argument that concludes "all dogs are mammals," must be valid regardless of the premises because the conclusion is true.
6:21 But I want it NOWWWWW!!
At the very end 6:20, if you turned it into an informal fallacy, then wouldn't it be "unsound" instead of "invalid"?
I thought informal fallacies were structurally valid, but unsound? Maybe I just misunderstood.
This was great! Thank you!
This needs to be curriculum in grade 1 or 2; not Dave's specifically, but the subject.
Gunna love this
Rogan Podcast 101. If you made a game out of all the fallacies in each Rogan episode, you would need to be hospitalized for alcohol poisoning
There is one good thing about flat earthers: They made me aware of informal fallacies.
How are these cemented definitely into the canon of Logic / Philosophy?
If things don’t work out,there is plenty of duct tape to muffle the sound of stupid
no.
@@TheAnalyst_ yes
edit:at least a strong maybe
Nice use of antiquity!
What type of fallacy is the claim that tree rings tell temperature?
How has no flat earther ever insulted the childish nature of Professor Dave's intro?
Love your content, Dave. I've watched a L O T of your videos.
Have you seen the average Flerf graphical design? They do at least THINK they aren’t hypocrites.
@@pretzelbomb6105 I wonder what would happen if Professor Dave and a flat earther had to argue for the side they *didn't* believe in; that is, Dave arguing in favor of flat earth, and the flat earther trying to argue for a round earth.
My best guess: the flat earther would throw the competition to mock round earth. With what I know about Professor Dave, I think he'd take it seriously and give it a genuine attempt, but also knowing how unlikely flat earth is, he'd also do poorly.
Cool stuff
Unironically taught better than my uni teacher xD
Whens the debate with Subboor coming?? 🙏🏽🙏🏽
Dave, please please please can you debunk the the book “the chemistry of auschwizt”?
I’m halfway down a rabbit hole and it seems like it’s the final argument that revisionists/deniers have
I am awaiting your civil engineering content as well as diffiq.
"you can't leave after 15 years just to travel the world!"
"sunk cost fallacy"
"think of how our children would feel about their father abandoning them!"
"appeal to emotion"
"you selfish bastard, how could you do this!?"
"ad hominem"
This is why I’m rooting for AI to rule humanity 💚
How bout' no.
@ I’ll take artificial morality over human morality any day any damn day
@@paralyl youre a brainless idiot who cant think for themselves
there's no artificial morality, you're just being dripfed Reddit content through a filter
it's just an LLM
@ I’m rooting for AI,
lol , you can’t change that. I really am.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned to Dave the new Flat Earth documentary called 'Origins Untold' that came out via a channel called Fesiuk Films, but it's an absolute hoot and I'd love to get Dave's take on it! It's just too easy rip in to. All the classic FE scammers feature.
Need a video on amagats curve and vandar waals eqn
Professor Dave’s double life is merging 😂
Thanks for doing this. Indeed the most common fallacy is to say that if A implies B then B implies A. This is the classical error of confusing correlation and causality and probably the number one mistake in layman misunderstanding of statistics.
What are you on about? A implies B is not a correlation. It is an implication. Correlation is a statistical concept. Implication is not the same as correlation. How do you not know this?
@RanEncounter Wow I did not expect such agressive remark. Maybe I should have formulated it better. What I meant is that the classic error of reversal of implication, the one I mentioned, is sometimes source of causality errors. If you says A causes B means B causes A (when it should be not B causes not A) it may lead to causality misinterpretation. But it is only a sunset of this error. Now we may have a debate about difference between causality and implication, but that is another level.
@@ericfernandez8700 "Wow I did not expect..."
Maybe you should as you made such a basic error while trying to seem like you know these concepts. You are trying to talk about a classical error in statistic that is conflating causality with correlation and cannot get even this right. Implication (A implies B and B implies A) both ways literally means A = B. Conflating this with just an implication is a different error. This is not the same as the statistical concepts of correlation and causality.
Do you even know what these concepts mean?
"If you says A causes B..."
But again you are conflating A implies B with A causes B. These are not the same thing! Also Conflating A cause B with B causes A has nothing to do with the classic error of conflating correlation with causality. You are not even talking about the classic problem!
"Now we may have..."
That is exactly your error. You do not seem to know the difference between an implication and causality. Again what are you doing?
@@RanEncounter Well in layman terms there is often a link between causality and implication. For instance, I can say that if being infected with the H1N1 virus implies that I have the flu. And that having the flu does not mean I am infected with H1N1. It could be H3N2. Now I could say H1N1 infection causes the flu. But bearing a flu virus is not cause for the fact I bear H1N1 virus. There the word cause is used loosely, contextually, but the reversal is the same fallacy. Like saying there are a lot of foreigners in prison, and that therefore being a foreigner means there is a higher risk to be a criminal. This is the kind of bs that you can read in some newspapers but this is exactly the same fallacy, whatever picky you may be on the vocabulary. This is what I meant.
@@RanEncounter i think he just meant that if A happening means B is too, B happening does not mean A is.
Basically
If A True
B True
BUT
If B True
A doesnt have to be True
I was literally about to go read my pdf which I downloaded for logical fallacies
'for the people unfamiliar with the law of large number, they would call it a coincidence.'
3:22 Uses a Euler diagram.
Remember folks, the more educated you are. the more it reduces your likelihood of being exploited or controlled by powerful & corrupt people in society. True freedom lies in learning atleast for me : P
4:55 ethos
All dogs are flat
Yeah, I'm immortal!
Wouldn't you call it 'begging the question', when the conclusion is already in your premise.
if more americans watched your videos we may actually be able to stop the country from collapsing
Rocks cannot fly, you cannot fly. Therefore you are a rock!
I wonder what inspired you to make this? ;)
If you want to give a more hidden example of Denying the Antecedent in a future video, here's one from Kent Hovind in your demolition of his arguments.
ruclips.net/video/lbB7AhwaZy8/видео.html
"There are a lot of prey out there that have been running from predators; rabbits have been running from predators. Why haven't any of them evolved wings?"
P1: If rabbits evolved wings, then evolution would be true.
P2: Rabbits didn't evolve wings
C: Evolution is false.
I have problems overthinking double negatives. When you say "Flat Earth Hoax is false", doesn't that mean Flat Earth = True, since a hoax is, by definition, false, then saying the hoax is false you are saying false is false, which means it's true, right?
I believe this would be an example of a tautology - when calling a hoax “False”, he is not denying the fact that it is a hoax, he is labelling it as something false.
You even used something similar when you said “a hoax is, by definition, false” - but substituting False into “hoax” doesn’t make a hoax true
extra points if you can combine half-a-dozen fallacies into a single argument.
Nice
1:10 You defined logical fallacies as reaching invalid conclusions due to faulty logic. But isn’t it also possible to reach valid conclusions using fallacies, too? For example, I could say that the Earth is round because most people believe it’s round. It’s a valid conclusion, but I used the bandwagon fallacy to get there
by "valid" he means "logically valid" or logically following, such as "all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, thus Socrates is mortal". the truth of a statement doesn't actually have anything to do with its "validity" as a logical consequent.
I’d watch a 30+minute video on this
years of flat earth debunking sure did something
All priests chase the Ursulines: that's a nun sequitur.
I was thinking about making my dog watch this. Maybe he will stop tying himself up with his lead. Maybe my dog thinks the same about me. 😎
I would love it if you could debunk daryl Anka, who supposedly channels an alien spirit called Bashar
That's basically how to try to give credit for the born of every art and science out of African cultures as the most advanced known to mankind works...
Someone should force Terrence Howard to watch this
Do you ever exhibit any logical fallacies when you discuss politics?
Very good list. But having seen all those fallcies i still have a clear opionion on which one is my favorite fellatio...
1:01 a young Donald Trump
Food is not medicine.
Sorry Joe ☠️
I'll drink to that.
Professor Dave, as long as we keep this respectful all will be well, a photographer took a photo from Hawaii to kauai, given the equation for the curvature of the Earth, the tallest structure on Kauai should not be visible at all, butt in this photographer's photo you can see the ground floor of the largest hotel, explain this please without disrespect being an adult and using logic, secondly the world's largest purchaser of helium by any immensely vast margin is NASA, I say this because people have found satellites the silver weather balloons weather balloons attached to them, it's a bit coincidental that NASA being the largest purchaser of helium and satellites found on people's property with these balloons attached to them aren't actual reality, I would like to understand this clearly can you please explain
A:they could have been on a hill B: you made this story up
You have very talented but you teach with too much speaking rate
Just...0.75x the video
flatliners even strawman logic all the time..
Interesting how you skipped over Plato and the platonic thought process….
I didn’t skip over anything. This is a very long philosophy series.
@ I would be delighted if you’d take a moment to expound on that in one of your future “Logical Fallacies” series. It’s CRITICAL, as I’m sure you’re aware of, to understand this when dealing with “logical” thinking
@@Vakkabon I gave your dad a buttgasm
@@kingmenelaus7083 like father like son...
Can we get a flerf edition?!
DAVE! You or your team, Billy Carson just had recent debate with a Biblical Scholar and William T Karlson, ol' Billy, got shredded! I'll put a link to a video in my reply, but you guys should be aware of it. If only because I truly love how you rip Billy Carson apart and he absolutely deserves it. CHEERS, DAVE 👋👍