LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

As a philosopher, I would like to disagree with everything you said. First of all you are British. Secondly, this is not every logical fallacy there is. Thirdly, I saw another video on logical fallacies and that was bad so this one will be bad as well.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

I have no choice but to admit defeat. You have bested me

@jeredquidlars8819

3 ай бұрын

bruh 😂😂😂

@ashirafnsubuga7981

3 ай бұрын

Am a ugandan but hiw does British matter . These fallacies occur in my language

@rauaf

3 ай бұрын

​@@ashirafnsubuga7981 Today I learned sarcasm doesn't exist in Uganda

@sandiadelsol6011

3 ай бұрын

I would like to disagree with your comment. I like the videos he makes and they are very interesting. Nothing wrong with being British. I’m curious what is wrong with his videos ?

as a professional logistician i refute all your points with one simple sentence nuh uh

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

This is, to be fair, an excellent point

@charlesrhodes1089

2 ай бұрын

Well, as a professional pedant, I will point out that you did not capitalize "I" which obviously completely invalidates your argument.

@directororsoncallankrennic3531

2 ай бұрын

@@charlesrhodes1089 As a professional tactician I do decree this to be false, by reason of "Nuh uh"

@12DAMDO

2 ай бұрын

i deny your refute with one logical counter proposal: bro was deadass

@beenice1555

Ай бұрын

I am in love with this sub-comment section

Schopenhauer actually wrote a book about this and afterwards was disgusted by all the tricks people used to appear smarter.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah is that "The Art of Being Right"? I've never read it but a friend of mine said it was both insightful and really funny

@coveredinthorns7185

3 ай бұрын

If your talking about art of controversy, it is good but not as technical in this video

@PoetWithARose

3 ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198it’s very good, i have it but it’s primarily a book on how to argue better

@BallBatteryReligion

3 ай бұрын

Thanks to your comment I've got some more Schopenhaur to study. Having not read it yet I'll say that from my experience these types of fallacies or "tricks" become pathological. Everyone would like to be right, for most people being correct is inseparable from feeling secure. You can watch someone cling to whatever bit of information they have left even as it dwindles into nothing or shifts the conversation to avoid feeling like they "lost." There's a pervasive tendency to treat any debate like a competition, a fight to be won and not like an opportunity to learn or improve. Which is unfortunate, but I don't hold it against most people as it seems to me that usually it's not even a fully conscious decision.

@MFLimited

2 ай бұрын

🤫

Finally, now I can use these fallacies better to infuriate my opponents.

Personally... when I encounter people who are arguing in bad faith, the tact that I have found to deal with them most effectively is to reword or rephrase what they've said to emphasize the offending segment and then yell at the top of my lungs; FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY FALLACY, and stick my tongue out. Good video though.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you! And I will give that a go

This is by far the most comprehensive and still in depth philosophy channel I have discovered on KZread. Thanks a lot!

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thank you! Though there is certainly much about each topic I don’t get to talk about

@vitoramim5346

3 ай бұрын

That goes without saying haha, but at least I can understand your points which usually isn’t the case when I try to read directly from the source 😅

honestly i believe logic should be a highschool class and ill put this in propositional form 1. most people do not think productively and most people do not take logic classes 2. logic classes help people think productively therefore people should take a logic class to help them think more productively

@Bobs_H

Ай бұрын

There's a hidden premise. The first premise should be, "People ought to think more productively." 😂

@Bobs_H

Ай бұрын

Don't mind me. I'm just being pedantic. Lol

@Leraii_11

Күн бұрын

@@Bobs_H good point

You make a superb point: logic is a bridge between minds. Without it, there can be no agreement, and without agreement, there can be no end to the problem of the world - sharing it. Of course, this assumes concern about truth to be universal. A common mistake of the intelligent. But it isn't. Most only care about truth insofar as it serves for them or their group to prosper. A will to power, if you will. Without self-discipline, there is no will to truth.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

Where there is no bridge between the hearts no logic can build a bridge between minds. The minds would never be willing to accept the truth of the other one.

@justachannel8600

3 ай бұрын

I agree about the will to power thing. I do however also think that there is a mistake in that. You supress truth once or twice people are going to notice. And then they will start lying to you, leaving you increasingly more ill informed as time goes by.

@Gares.

3 ай бұрын

@@justachannel8600 indeed. But even beyond a purely machievellian perspective on it... It is unfortunate that so many prefer to lie to themselves for the sake of personal narratives.

@sandiadelsol6011

3 ай бұрын

Good words thanks for your comment

@claudiaarjangi4914

2 ай бұрын

So true . I always hated the idea that I MYSELF knew that something I said was purposely untrue.. Always found it embarrassing, to me & , I thought, other people too. Took till I was in my early thirties till I realized not everyone valued truth for themselves.. The ends justify the purposeful obvious lie 😶 Some people will even look you straight in the face KNOWING that we BOTH know the truth, & it is totally different from their words.. I would find this type of argument mortifyingly embarrassing, that people would simply know I was purposely untruthful when the truth is obvious.. 😁☮️🌏

Just discovered you, your channel is great. Love the way you help me synthesize ideas I'm already familiar with, and for going deep on stuff I haven't seen before too. Cheers.

Thanks for everything you've taught on this channel! It really feels straightforward to learn with your explanations than with a lecture in uni.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thank you! I am really glad

The way you speak is really intriguing :) It keeps my interest for the full video unlike some others, Great video btw!!

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you! Im glad you enjoyed it

🎉 Discovered your channel super recently. Happy yet about. 🎉

I love your idea of learning propositioning from the ground up so we could be done with fallacies altogether

Holy crap. I have zero clue why this video ended up 8n my feed. But im glad it did. Absolutely earned a sub from me.

Wow! That was so suucinct and valuable. It was like you sorted through 20,000 cubic yards of dirt, rock, and detritus, just to offer up that essential gold nugget of the limits of logic, and the idea of proveeding only in good faith, or not at all. Well done sir! Brilliant!

This is really, really useful. For life even, in general. Thanks for this video. Your work here is always great!

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thank you! I hope so!

Awesome, perfect timing, as I am doing a critical essay and this is a nice logic refresher. Thank you so much!

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for watching! What is the essay on?

@jaimlawson

3 ай бұрын

​@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Reading and evaluating the journal article "Personal Identity" by R. G. Swinburne from the Oxford Journals. I am tasked with identifying logical fallacies within the article and explaining why each one is a fallacy. It shouldn't be too challenging, but the journal article is giving me a headache lol.

@jaimlawson

3 ай бұрын

Oh, btw, you seem to have an innate taste and ability with art. Every piece of art managed to represent each point that you were trying to get across with precision.

This was a really fascinating explanation thank you

i like the examples you give, it helps a lot with understanding.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thank you!

How kind of you to add captions,really helpful for English learners ❤

this is the type of stuff i constantly think about whenever somebody decides to argue with me and none of their truthful arguments even remotely debunk mine..

Pretty helpful! Thanks!

Hey, thanks for your work. You're putting out some very useful and valuable content. Being a bit "insightful" can be isolating. alienating. Good to know I'm not alone in my aloneness.

This is a brilliant channel. If I may ask us, how do we go about learning or solidifying our knowledge in logical systems? And, what do you plan on doing career wise?

quality channel, quality content, what more can I ask for

Can't wait for the paradox video. Currently trying to find out if there's a name for one, I'm experiencing right now. Where you want to wait to do something, so that it's the best that it possibly can be, but if you wait, it might not be as good as if you started now and then had the experience, but yet starting now could take the opportunity away entirely.

@Binfinity

3 ай бұрын

I guess that's called procrastination 😂

@BallBatteryReligion

3 ай бұрын

Not so much a paradox but it sounds like "paralysis by analysis" procrastination, maybe. I'm sure you could work it into a paradox. One quote I do like though is: "A good plan, violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week." -George S. Patton

@wetwillyis_1881

3 ай бұрын

@@BallBatteryReligion I think paralysis by analysis is a good terminology, thank you.

@alextomlinson

Ай бұрын

I have this problem and it’s specifically due to perfectionism which was induced by ultra critical rejective upbringing

It’s a great day whenever you upload!

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thank you! That’s very kind

14:04 In my experience, when debating a bad faith argument, I have found that following these simple steps tends to work 80% of the time, every time: 1. Definition 2. Clarification 3. Conversation 4. Resolution Definition being, I affirm with the arguer that our definitions relevant to the discussion are congruent. Once that is out of the way, I have the arguer clarify exactly what their proposition is so that I can be sure I am correctly understanding and responding to their position. I then clarify my own position and proposition in response, if necessary conceding a prior misunderstanding if it led to unproductive debate. Once that's done, I then have a conversation instead of a debate, continually having them clarify their points and "Yes, And"-ing them to the degree that either they eventually point out their own fallacious arguments, or take up new positions entirely creating contradictions. Afterwards I usually thank them for their time, and that's the resolution, occasionally they do the same in return.

Your video reminded me of a book "The art of dispute" by Sergey Povarnin, many close points, especially if we talk about the end of the video. Sadly, as far as I know, there's no English translation of the book.

This is the video I needed about this.

Great video! Showing examples was very helpful. Regarding bad faith actors, it's probably best to not even engage with them...although this can be difficult if the person is close to you in real life.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you! And that’s probably a good idea

@ieltsteachergerard5957

2 ай бұрын

​@@unsolicitedadvice9198Just tell them that they makes some really interesting points and you will need some time to take them on board. Maybe, in the future, they might actually have something to live up to. Firstly, you don't need to continue listening and thinking about it. Secondly, you might make their future conversationsore productive!

Much love from the US 🇺🇸 Keep these videos going! 🔥

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

You're so smart that you make me wanna learn all about philosophy and get a degree in sociology or something, lol. Thank you for inspiring me to delve deeper into knowledge and educate myself on logic and philosophy!

@nathaniel1069

2 ай бұрын

If he was so smart, why isnt this video more popular? Prove to me that he is smart. According to my dad, KZread makes your brain rot.

There is also an interesting take (which you touched on) I heard about in a channel that treated about philosophy, but was led by a statistician: informal fallacies don’t treat about probability at all, and are a “perversion” and abuse of deduction (in the sense that it’s like applying newton physics to quantum mechanics)

Thank You

I don't understand, but I will watch until I do. Good on you, sir 🎩👌

Thanks

Great video and content

In summation, you have Rules of Logic by which you can determine the validity and soundness of an argument; and, you have rules of discourse that permit or promote productive argumentation. We call breaches of these collective rules, "Fallacies," and, sometimes, confound the two. Naturally, in terms of Epistemic Justification, the rules of Logical Inference carry more weight since invalidity decreases the probability of truth and an unsound argument must be false.

Logical fallacies are so ingrained into our everyday thinking that its a wonder how we have a society at all. So many fallacies, so easy to make. Zero training to not make them in school. Parents making them 24/7. Friends, politicians, popular figures. They’re everywhere. That’s without errors in reasoning or flaws in determining truth😭🤯

Amazing video

The thing with strawmanning is that an implied claim is: "therefore your argument is wrong", because a strawman does not interact with the argument, all the premises do not neccesitate the solution, thus it is an invalid argument. To demonstrate using your mammals example: Your claim: Most mammals give live birth. Their premises: 1. Mammals that lay eggs don't have live births. 2. Platypuses are mammals. 3. Platypuses lay eggs (I think that was the exact argument but that's what I remember.) Their claim: 1. At least one mammal does not have live birth. 2. Your claim is wrong. But 2 is invalid because all three claims could be true while your claim can be true because it allows exceptions.

Brother I love your videos and have been with u since 100 subs. You seriously need to change your thumbnails, they are holding you back. Especially re-using the same few images but changing their locations. Content is amazing tho so keep it up :)

@unsolicitedadvice9198

2 ай бұрын

Haha! I have tried to mix them up a bit with the images recently, but I take your point. It's just that whenever I change them to something else the click-through rate goes through the floor

@pckle

2 ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Skip to the bottom of my comment if you don't want to read some light yapping. It's what I'd want you to take away from all my blathering. I did notice the variety in images!! It was what made me click on this video if I'm being honest; KZread often suggests videos already viewed, but I could tell at a glance this was a new upload. If you've experimented with changing the thumbnail and the CTR dropped you've likely built some brand identity. This would come with many advantages (and makes my original point entirely redundant) and you'll probably see steady growth in your channel and the YT algorithm will love that. Most importantly, take a look at Novara Media's thumbnails!! They are very similar to your own, and the bright outline makes it stand out on the webpage. They've changed the colour multiple times too so don't worry about picking the best colour immediately, take time to experiment if you do implement this. You should really consider doing it though as it would be super easy, and I would predict an immediate spike in views.

This guy is brilliant. He should start a Podcast. Great voice.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

2 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Superb

I think the video will do better if the thumbnail says something like "a more intuitive approach" as someone searching for logical fallacy explained and deciding to click on either explained in 18 min or in 11 min will have little reason to watch the 18min version. Love your style tho, keep it up!

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thanks for the tip! I might change it later. If I change it too soon it messes up the algorithm. I had initially made the title and thumbnail a bit more "sensational" but I figured I was probably overplaying my hand if I made it seem like this was a full-on response video.

@NewBeginnings-vx6ic

3 ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Yes, maybe don't put the refered video in the thumbnail and rather focus on the intuitivity or in-depth aspect of your video. In any case, I believe it's always a good idea to highlight the strength of your video regarding the competition if that might be a large portion of your Video :)

Brilliantly explained

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

As per my experience of having a meaningful conversation. I gave them what I believe and asked them to come to conclusions and check why. If I feel reasonable conclusions ( well thought) it is ok to go ahead where we agree and disagree. If a person does not have thought about it and wants to stick to the same point. It's time to move on😅

Logic and falacy spotting really isn't my strongest suit... Oh, thanks for the video, by the way. Much respect, and Please Come to Brazil.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

By the way by pure serendipity (lucky happenstance) I'm re-reading at the moment "The Art of Thinking Clearly" by Rolf Dobelli. Cheers

Hey! Thank you for this video. I’ve got curious, what’s your former education, if it’s not philosophy?

Ppl really enjoy videos about logic and rationality we need more from this

What this guy actually studied? He is indeed brilliant!

Any book recommendations on propositions logic?

There is an argument I heard for why you should continue a discussion with someone who was arguing in bad faith that I thought was pretty good. The argument was that it was for everyone else who viewed the discussion who may not have been participating.

men this channel is good

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Great content, man... Really informative and easy to comprehend.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you! I am glad it was helpful!

Amazing channel

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

What piece of art is that at 9:16

That is why context matters.

My argument would be that you are an authority on acceptable rhetorical flourishes, as all true philosophers should be.

I'm very confused how logical fallacy works, sometimes people just called someone out that they're using a logical fallacy and it became really really confusing 😢😢. Just making logical fallacy clear from the start is a good start.

Damn i was just researching this topic, thanks for this

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thank you for watching it! I hope it is helpful

@Letty7370

3 ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198It was very helpful! Do you have any recommended reading for learning logic from the ground up? Currently in A levels, and plan on doing Maths and philosophy in future

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah there is a free textbook called "ForAllx" online that we learnt from at Cambridge for introductory logic. I may also make a skillshare class on it eventually

@Letty7370

3 ай бұрын

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I've went through the first 20 pages or so , and this is exactly what i was looking for. Thanks for this. Also what degree did you do and would you recommend it?

Thanks!

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you so much! That’s very kind!

Could you make a video with your take on mental models?

Needs to be on the fictional (at least for now!) Channel 4 show "The Undebateables". Its my proposed version of "The Undateables" but sees potential partners pitted against each other in fiercely contested philosophical arguments.

honestly feel as if this should be shown in schools around the world, the way democracy is currently looking and politicians like Trum who just know how to talk are dangerous to me

Also appeal to novelty

Omg, you're almost at a 100k subscriber 🤯🤯

@unsolicitedadvice9198

2 ай бұрын

It is getting very close!

Hello from Sydney Australia 🙏💜🌞🤠

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Hello there!

Logical fallacies IMO, are intended to structure thinking more than to deconstruct arguments. The issue is, on many discussion boards a great number of people don't have the structure of their thinking in matched competency to having a grounded foundation in such lines of thought before discussing. People fundamentally at the age of arguing merely want to be right bcuz they believe in their own position. Hence, "I will be correct at any cost" takes hold, much like "all is fair in love & war" thinking. Whereby, such discussions are beyond moot. These arguments are for the sole perpose of casting opinions out into the void on the hope that the loudest noise will stand on the top of the hill. Making social discourse futile in many times or spaces upon these boards.

Beware of false equivalency.

on the side of putting arguments into this propositional form to have an easier time dismantling and understanding them: I can see at least two implicit assumptions going along with it (outside of "everyone can understand this" and "everyone can learn this"): 1st: the system itself is so perfect that it is impossible to create a contradiction within itself (or also: there definetly undeniably exist such a perfect and complete system in the first place) 2nd people using that same system won't just start to use or abuse it in a completely different way than it itself was intended to be used as. for the first assumption, I can already think of an that tried just that, but ended up coming short instead (goedel's incompleteness theorem comes to my mind specifically), so therefore I at the very least would be vary of making an assumption that any type of system being used for exactly being also undeniably and provably perfect for that. and for the second assumption: do absolutely not underestimate the ability and willingness of a narcissist to find ways to still twist and exploit those same systems to what they aren't supposed to be used for. Even if by some miracle there is a system that would be perfectly resistent against just that, they could still instead just start to not teach it or only exclusively in a wrong way that benefits them and them alone. my own two cents from a very subjective experience there.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Oh I’m not suggesting it is foolproof, and I’m also not arguing for an axiomatic system (as in the Hilbert program). I’m rather suggesting it as a tool to aid communication (but it obviously would not perfect it)

@somerandomgal3915

3 ай бұрын

thank you for the clarification@@unsolicitedadvice9198

KZread: Este vídeo puede ser inadecuado para algunos usuarios. El vídeo: Hoy aprenderemos las falacias lógicas. 🤠

I think the fallacies are still justified as fallacies in some cases. When a person says "you're a bad person, you've got to be wrong", the arguement may be written as: Premise: you're a bad person Conclusion: you're wrong There is clearly an incomplete premise and hence an invalid arguement.The second premise: Premise 2: whoever is a bad person is wrong The second premise is not directly stated in the arguement. One may say that it is an implicit assumption, but i would argue that it rests with the speaker to clarify all his premises, rather than the listener to assume that the speaker meant more than he said. If we were to do so, different people may come up with different premises, that the speaker may or may not have intended, for example, one listener may interpret it as: Premise 1: you're a bad person Premise 2: all bad persons eat cookies Premise 3: whoever eats cookies, is wrong Conclusion: you're wrong This is just one example, but there can be infinite possible ways of assuming an implicit premise. For this reason, i think we should classify "you're bad, therefore you're wrong" as an invalid arguement and "fallacy of structure" and same with most other "fallacies of content".

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, there is definitely a blurred line here as you can render a lot of formal fallacies as content based one’s and vice versa. I largely chose the line based on what I thought best illuminated the mistake in reasoning. Re: your point about implicit premises, I suppose I am a bit more forgiving - I tend to work actively to uncover implicit premises just (which is probably why the “hidden premise” interpretations make more sense to me). Ultimately I do think they are potentially more illuminating just because you can also see under what circumstance the person would be right (I.e., if their hidden premise actually held).

17:32 No, it is acceptable

#unsolicitedadvice 😂😂😂 I love the name of the channel! ❤❤❤

@BodhisattvaBabe

Ай бұрын

“Rhythm 🥁 you have it or you don’t that’s a fallacy.” #Gorillaz #ClintEastwood #FeelGoodInc #Skye does an amazing cover also.

@BodhisattvaBabe

Ай бұрын

#Lionsmane mushrooms 🍄 removed Alzheimer’s plaques in mice. 🐁

@BodhisattvaBabe

Ай бұрын

👏 👏 👏

4:05 could you expand on this point a little bit? Im not well read on the subject so there is a good probability that im wrong, but afaik while intuitionists reject the law of excluded middle to be used in a proof because it can lead to things like proving a statement false without being able to construct a counter example (for example brouwer fixed point theorem iirc) wich is unsatisfying, but they don't actually believe that there are statements that are neither true nor false.

@unsolicitedadvice9198

2 ай бұрын

Ah yes sorry its formal use in a proof was all I was referring to. I wasn’t trying to make some broader philosophical point. But you are absolutely right that just because an intuitionist doesn’t accept LEM as a proof step doesn’t mean they reject bivalence (the idea that every statement is either true or false) from a philosophical standpoint (or, indeed, in the semantics of their logic (for example, not-A could be false and A could also be false under some intuitionist systems, without breaking bivalence)).

It should be noted that your second category arguments are not fallacies if the person actually holds it premises as true. Essentially, in an argument it is your job to convincingly respond to any genuine argument. So if for example your ally in argument (often wrongly called your opponent) argues that all experts should be believed you cannot merely go "argument from authority", a good debater proves the point.

I love your voice

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you! That's very kind

I often find arguments to be what I learnd as "Arguments of Ambiguity" where both sides can't even agree on premises because they are unwittingly working from different definitions. One of the most common examples I see is arguments concerning "capitalism" and "socialism". To one side "capitalism" means a system where the means of production are privately owned by a fraction of the population, but to the other side, "capitalism" is synonymous with "free market" in which all manner of different business structures can interact including privately owned businesses, publicly traded ones, co-ops, workers unions, etc. The two definitions don't match in their essences; one is defined by severe limitations while the other is defined by a distinct lack of limitation.

@Haqueip

3 ай бұрын

Yooo, this what happened to me, but we both agree that those 2 realm can't really affect eachother

For appeal to authority, something that I think is vitally important when considering the position of "most experts in the field" is whether heterodox views are permitted in that field. You could say that, the consensus view of most experts is more likely to be true, unless heterodox views are actively suppressed, in which case the consensus view is more likely to be false. Of course, this does not imply that heterodox views are necessarily true, they are no more likely to be true than any other. The suppression of heterodox views creates a false consensus which is even more suspicious when this false consensus is used to "debunk" heterodox views. This happens in the real world very often, where the underlying cause may range anywhere from innocent behaviour to outright maliciousness.

- There are crumbs on the floor. - I have no cat. - Then it proves God.

I belive that manners falacies can be half-logic falicies If : participant one arguse that most mammals give live birth and not all mammals give live birth And : participant two points out that the platapus lays eggs Then: a bad manners falacy is applicable This may be less logical than some arguments but it still involves a great deal of logic

In data analysis we call "Invalid Arguments", "Hidden Variables"

nice video

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Thank you!

The #1 fallacy I see in online forums is the following: Person A used a fallacious argument, therefore Person A's claimed argumental conclusion is false. Someone might appeal to emotion, and even though said emotion has zero bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the claim, just the same, the fallacy they committed likewise does nothing to nullify the claim. Is there a name for this sort of informal fallacy? The fallacy of the conclusion-nullifying fallacy? The #2 fallacy is crying foul at "appeal to authority." Appeal to authority is probably the misunderstood of all fallacies. Maybe you cover this in this video.

I know this sounds ridiculous but i'm comparing these arguments to league of legends champions and the players that use them, and the intention behind using them. Some players use easy and powerful champions to easily win, they are called out for their 'easy way to win' way of playing. Some players seek to improve their gameplay. They go for champions that improve the skills needed to be better at the game. Forms of arguments are the same: either you seek to improve/be right or you seek to appear right/win...same as in the game where you may: seek to play a champion that improves you or you seek to win.

My favorite fallacy is the one in which a person believes they have dismantled an argument simply by identifying the fallacy it embodies.

Bad-faith arguers take an aggressive approach to 'dismantle'. You see someone who is adept or well-versed in bad faith arguments and/or 'tearing down opponents' has a leg up in one aspect, the ego. The ego is a powerful thing in that you can 'freeze' someone in space/time by bringing the strength of your ego down on theirs (in war, in a fight, in a debate, etc..) and 'crush' theirs. Your ego is your presence in space/time so if you can't 'hold your own' against someone who is berating you or subverting your logic, you will 'lose' anyway unable to bring your voice or logic to bear. Of course, garnering an ego to use it to back up your logical integrity comes with the responsibility. The point of using and withholding the 'force' of the ego is the difference between a bad-faith argument and a self-defensive argument. You see, you can have all the logic in the world and all the spiritual strength to back it up, but if your ego is shouted/shut down you can't really lift a finger. Anyway, the goal is to truthfully, but importantly more forcefully impose your ego onto them, and their ego will crash unsupported by their weak logic (Which is why they are bad faith actors in the first place, their logic is bad.), while your ego and logic are synthesized against those dark attacks. Hope this helps my friend.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

Suppose the argument takes place between a man and a woman - lets say lovers. Do you really think that it is only ego an logic what plays a role? Or, it might take place between an agressive armed bad-faith unlogical one and an unarmed logical trying to impose their ego on them - do you still think the good guy wins? It never ceases to amuse me to observe the unlogical way in which most men try to impose logic on the - by definition unlogical - life. Life is no academic argument taking place online, so all this pondering logicall fallacies is of no practical use.

@shripperquats5872

3 ай бұрын

​@@alena-qu9vj Well actually, I do have a girlfriend and we do discuss/philosophize, but we also argue over some things some of the time, and when we do there's a chance one of us create a fallacious argument. I love her because she's good at picking apart my ego when it oversteps its boundaries; and my ego steps up when she tries to subvert it through my emotions. This is not because she is evil and this is not because I am a manipulator, but we keep each other in check because if we didn't we'd tear eachother apart. If I was truly wrong, she'd internalize it over time and tell me. If i'm truly right, she apologizes, and vice versa. After repeating this proccess of criticizing but loving eachother over and over we hope to build something stronger than 'pure logic' alone can deduce or reduce, and our egos grow against eachother into strength, and ultimately this creates a better spiritual connection between us. There is no good guy in an argument between the man and wife; it's a constructive process where if one is wrong, they both grow from it rather than resent and tear apart.

@alena-qu9vj

3 ай бұрын

@@shripperquats5872 Congratulations to your relationship. I am glad you too see that logic is by far not the main thing in it.

@SupermonkeyPlaysMC

3 ай бұрын

I appreciate the way you’ve worded this; I’ve put pen to paper to keep track of some of these ideas overall, while almost testing them for myself. In short building myself into someone who is capable of standing up; sometimes it only takes one person to start a chain. Along that path is understanding, and initially what comes to mind is caution for the ones who fight monsters. Not to mention the courage it takes to actually stand for what we believe in, I definitely have respect for that. I love how infinitely variable each of us are from one another; and on another hand we are that much closer than we all think. Thanks for sharing

Answer for you if they argue in bad faith call them out and refuse to engage

How and why is this age restricted? 😂

Hi, you put written comments in the left side of the video, they are gone far too quickly, so I have to pause and rewind, please leave them a bit longer so they can be read more easily. Than you! Cheers

Good video ❎ great video ✅

@unsolicitedadvice9198

3 ай бұрын

Ah thank you!

The main "problem" with ad hominems and appeal to authority is that it's not a good way to come conclusion. For any given statement A there must be a logically sound way to prove/disprove it. When u go for Ad Hominem / Appeal to authority u are basically saying that a person B said A, person B is good/bad, therefore A is true/false. Instead of that u should engage with the underlying logic of the statement A regardless of who said it

11:01 this happened to me. I actually didn't make my premise and definition clearly

Indeed, Most of the mentioned 'fallacies' are Not concerned with formal Logic. But i want to suggest the notion, that one can nontheless speak of logical 'fallacies' by referring with 'logic' to the Attribute of non-contradiction in every way, from theoretical till practical reason. By that i mean the clear notion, by which for example practical reason fails to exercise properly. This Happening for example with the strawman fallacy etc. For If i Wish to grasp the Truth, but argue my way past a fruitfull Argument by making it easy for me to defete what was of no value and Intent at all, i Hinder myself and my companion in Mutual inquiry. Or Said more easily: To speak about Something, albight taking of Something Else, with the simultanious intent and believe to really Talk about the Former, while Not, is obviously contradictory and by that 'illogical'. Please excuse my possible Bad english, as i am No native speaker.

👍🏼 thanks

Sometimes, I wonder why logicians still define the law of noncontradiction semantically when they know about the liar's paradox. That's the paradox you show when you say, "This proposition is false." That proposition is true if and only if it's false. However, you can avoid that paradox by treating the LNC as a metaphysical principle. Aristotle St. Thomas Aquinas would word the LNC this way: Nothing can simultaneously be and not be in the same respect." A boulder weighs a metric ton, or it doesn't. That's because a boulder's nature determines what a boulder can be and do, not on language.