วีดีโอ

Politics trumps science and truth.

This video is okayyyyyy, but there are too many instances in history of the so-called 'consensus' being wrong and so-called 'experts' not willing to call it out for either fear or greed, to ignore that factor. Sometimes experts in other fields can legitimately call out basic errors of methodology because they have nothing to lose either way, but those in the field DO.

The reality is most dialogue are appeals to authority. So if I go to a doctor he may say that I should take an asthma preventative. Normally I would say fine. That is because we assume that there is a academic consensus about treatment and he is familiar with it. In day to day life we make huge numbers of decisions based on an appeal to authority. Smoking is bad for health, exercise is good it is best to avoid processed food. However there are times when we may wish to dispute the authority. The reality is that something is not true because someone says it but we actually rely on their knowledge. One occasion we may challenge authority is if we think the underlying knowledge is wrong. We then challenge someone to prove something independent of their status. One example of this is Gary Habermas and his minimal facts argument. He says that there is an academic consensus about some facts of Jesus life amongst Bible scholars. Their may be. But there may be reasons to suggest that Bible scholars are not really good sources. They in practice sign documents of faith which destroy any suggestion of academic independence

Experts have been known to lie. And be wrong. and .... Argumentum ad populum is a thing in the "scientific community". I think someone needs to read Dr Sowell's <<The Vision of the Anointed>>

i liked watching this video because a while ago i watched another one, talking about the hiatihi people, more oftenly called 'piraha', and, in the video, the creator was citing the people as a 'tribe'. i said 'tribe' is a racist term and that they should have used the endonym rather than the exonym, to show respect not only to the hiatihi people but to all indigenous peoples in general. i used an indigenous man as a back-up for my argument, since he not only studies sociology but also is an indigenous person and i cited a more recent general consensus that is growing in sociology towards the word 'tribe' being racist. they've said my argument was fallacious, specifically the appeal to authority fallacy. i was a bit confused because generally the appeal to authority is only brought up to talk about irrelevant people being mentioned and not, literally, one of the people the word targets and that studies the relations of society on indigenous people.

This was a great video. And one I watched over and over.

More true and valid today than ever before. I enjoy your videos very much.

i wish people would learn this in school...if this had happened over the last 30 years we d be in a very different place, timeline even

Excellent video, thanks!

1:90 😂😂 logic is a stranger to you🤦 Strong consensus is not a valid argument. Just a few centuries ago there was a strong consensus that Earth is flat and poisoned in the center of the universe.... 😂😂😂😂 Basically you equated being "expert" with being right, being "an authority in the field"😂🤦 If 99 doctors say you have cancer, don't they have to prove it?🤷

A fallacy I haven't heard of, thanks!

Deep down we are all pragmatists. The body ( and even less the mind/consciousness/ soul/ ego or whatever) does not know for sure ''what is true''. Fortunately it does not have to. It just has to act according to what is ''true enough to keep us alive''. :)

This was an excellent interview, thought-provoking, challenging and encouraging. Loved that you both had the humility to learn from each other. Thanks so much for sharing.

I am so guilty of this one.

This video makes me angry, sad, afraid, and happy all at the same time.

Loving these short explanations. Great for sharing with the kids. Thanks!

Thank you

This is Leftist terminology. The Left are the champions of language manipulation.

It can be a very useful rule of thumb, however. The very fact that we can often easily distinguish between materials that are found directly in nature, and man-made ones shows how they often have distinct properties. Our bodies have evolved over billions of years, and are used to natural chemicals, for the most part. Even for chemicals like snake venom, the body can sometimes develop immunity over time. This is usually not the case for synthetic molecules, which are produced using processes often not available in nature.

Strictly, it IS. a UFO if you can't identify what it is... So, igno ergo sum does apply here.

On a similar note: I'm always confused about people claiming to believe in supernatural events. The way I see it, if something exists than by definition it has to be natural, because it is consistent with the nature of the cosmos. Something supernatural thereby cannot exist as it is not consistent with the nature of the cosmos ergo un-natural. So what you're claiming is - at least in my understanding of the term "natural" - that you believe in an event that can't exist by definition.

Love this.

i cant hear u bro

I reason by way of a probability curve, relativity is somewhere near the top, ghosts and god are near the bottom.

When you ask your kids "do you want to do what you have to do, or this other thing you despise". Effective parental tactics.

Sooo... Would you say that people that use this fallacy are good or bad?

It is indeed. btw, I just had this argument today with theist. You said it better than I.

I've been a fan of your channel since discovering it after your TED Talk, and I'm particularly enjoying your current series on logical fallacies. However, I've noticed that the audio in all your videos is consistently low in volume, making it challenging to hear and understand the content. This might be due to a few factors: 1. Microphone placement: Ensure your mic is about a hand's length from your mouth for optimal sound capture. 2. Audio levels: Check your gain staging during recording and editing, aiming for average levels around -6 to -12 dB. 3. Post-production: Consider applying some audio processing like compression and EQ to enhance clarity. 4. Export settings: Verify you're using high-quality audio settings (at least 256 kbps) when exporting. Addressing these points could significantly improve the audio quality and make your excellent content more accessible to viewers. Keep up the great work, and thanks for considering this feedback!

In 2016, when trump's vulgar audio celebrating his ability to get away with assaulting women because he was famous came out, Republicans countered with Hillary having stood by Bill Clinton in light of the Lewinski matter. They argued that one politically neutralized the objectionability of the other. Yet, clearly what Bill Clinton did was consensual and between adults. There is absolutely no comparing this to grabbing a woman against her will.

I have seen this form of argument out in the wild. Thanks for putting a name to it!

I've been a fan of your channel since discovering it after your TED Talk, and I'm particularly enjoying your current series on logical fallacies. However, I've noticed that the audio in all your videos is consistently low in volume, making it challenging to hear and understand the content. This might be due to a few factors: 1. Microphone placement: Ensure your mic is about a hand's length from your mouth for optimal sound capture. 2. Audio levels: Check your gain staging during recording and editing, aiming for average levels around -6 to -12 dB. 3. Post-production: Consider applying some audio processing like compression and EQ to enhance clarity. 4. Export settings: Verify you're using high-quality audio settings (at least 256 kbps) when exporting. Addressing these points could significantly improve the audio quality and make your excellent content more accessible to viewers. Keep up the great work, and thanks for considering this feedback!

Better known as "false dichotomy".

The problem in politics when they see it as team sport and aren't waiting for response of their candidate but are just rooting for him to avoid answeeing as "owning the libs", which is not healthy. Note that it's done by extreme left as often as right, as you can see some leftists prop up right wing talking points to help distract from real issues just because their goal isn't a better country but, again, defeating the liberals.

I love this! One of the hard things about learning about faulty thinking is being able to spot it in real-life situations. The second example also highlight just how subtle this fallacy can be. It's not immediately obvious why that's a red herring, and it feels like a perfectly normal response someone would have to the question, but it's beside the point.

Excellent job. And doing individual videos is smart: Google likes to recommend TH-cam videos, so it improves your odds of getting views when arguers accuse each other of fallacies. And if anuyone complains about a fallacy being named after a fish, remind them that Trump is living proof that they travel in schools 😎

Can I please audit this class?

Reminds me of political people. They are dumb, do not look at the root causes of problems, and will accept the stupidest reasons for why things happen, before moving on to their next idiotic outlook on life.

i found you on tiktok and really value your work ! please don’t stop ! the world needs to learn to think more critically in order to solve our biggest problems and help us. we need you to teach us to be better skeptics.

I always look forward to your videos, and love the simple examples you use. Thank you.

I liked this video, but couldn't put my finger on the exact reason why

Great info.

Thanks!

I have done cognitive behavioral psychotherapy. I must say that it can be eliminated with a razor. It does not study you like a doctor does, if clinical psychology wants to continue, it must abandon all types of psychotherapy. Clinical psychologists should treat the patient with biophysics + mathematical reasoning + logical reasoning.

My favorite Jonah Goldberg quote is "Beware one-thingism".

I’m not sure I ever understood this fallacy and still don’t. If I said… If you start smoking marijuana it may lead to excessive use or other drug use… if my friend says that’s a slippery slope fallacy… what am I supposed to say? Maybe this isn’t a correct example.

Excellent Information!!! Now I will look at my food differently!!! Please make more informative videos!!!😊

Popularity does not determine truth however, it does inherently draw power and power is a formidable tool. This is something clearly weaponized in the political arena.

These fallacy's are the worst thing to ever happen to reddit. Basically impossible to have a conversation without some neckbeard screaming "Fallacy!" Lol

Could you walk us through recent papers, the quality of the studies, and how they are misrepresented in media? That would be compelling applications and examples of the tools in your videos.

Tnx