ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Dig into the burden of proof fallacy, which assumes that something is true unless proven false and relies on arguments from ignorance.
--
It’s 1950. Anti-communist sentiment in the United States is at an all-time high. Senator Joseph McCarthy claims he has a list of communists who are influencing government policy. He makes his first accusation without providing any legitimate evidence, yet the senate committee still schedules a hearing. Can you spot the problem with this hearing? Elizabeth Cox explores the burden of proof fallacy.
Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by Pazit Cahlon and Hector Herrera.
Animator's website: wearetogether.ca/
Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/TEDEdNew...
Support us on Patreon: bit.ly/TEDEdPat...
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/TEDEdFac...
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/TEDEdTwi...
Peep us on Instagram: bit.ly/TEDEdIns...
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/les...
Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! Pavel Maksimov, Victoria Soler-Roig, Betsy Feathers, Samuel Barbas, Therapist Gus, Sai Krishna Koyoda, Elizabeth Parker, William Bravante, Irindany Sandoval, Mark wisdom, Brighteagle, Beatriz Inácio, Mighterbump, Pamela Harrison, Maija Chapman, Liana Switzer, Curtis Light, The Brock, Dianne Palomar, Edgar Campos Barrachina, Maria Lerchbaumer, Ever Granada, Marin Kovachev, Ravi S. Rāmphal, Penelope Misquitta, Tekin Gültekin, Jhuval, Hans Peng, Gaurav Mathur, Erik Biemans, Tony, Michelle, Katie and Josh Pedretti, Vaibhav Mirjolkar, Thomas Bahrman, Allan Hayes, Aidan Forero, Uday Kishore, Mikhail Shkirev, Devesh Kumar, Sunny Patel, Anuj Tomar, Lowell Fleming, David Petrovič, Hoai Nam Tran, Stina Boberg, Alexandrina Danifeld, Kack-Kyun Kim, Travis Wehrman, haventfiguredout, Caitlin de Falco and Ken.
"If the government can't be a voice of reason then I'll have to." he must step in a lot
There was no noise; he just died!
If only we had this demon in real life…
@@pegmay7209 Yes.
at this point he must be running a marathon lol
We have so few episodes of him because he rarely has time to grab a camera.
I, for one, will be voting for the Demon of Reason as the President, Prime Minister, Emperor, Chief Executive, Premier, Chancellor, and Sultan in as many elections as possible.
Except his example at 2:45 fell into the very fallacy he's warning against. Gotta be careful to separate "proven facts" from "personal worldview" you know!
@Baba Yaga I think what he’s trying to say is that he doesn’t believe in Global Warming
@@ShadwSonic so are you saying that global warming is fake? Cause statistics isn't worldview. Its data.
@@sp4c1ng_0ut8 As Benjamin Franklin said, there's three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and _statistics._
See, while statistics may just be data presented a certain way, that presentation can easily alter the apparent meaning. The sample size may be misleading (intentionally or otherwise), the events or data being compared may have nothing to do with each other, the assumptions taken to generate the data may be faulty, etc. _That_ is why you can't just blindly trust statistics, especially since the worldview of "evolution" is a _significant_ assumption in that regard, one that many have shown to be highly problematic to say the least.
@@ShadwSonic ok, im aware of how data can be misrepresented. And you somehow managed to completely miss the original quoted person: Benjamin *Disraeli* . Anyway, just say you dont believe in science and move on. Im gonna take a page out of his book and ask this: Evidence climate change is misrepresented, and evidence that evolution is wrong
You brought him back!! Yes, I loved this character.
So happy this character is back.
I agree. The demon of reason is a really cool character in my opinion! I just love how he decides to magically take the clothes of the person who is incorrect as well. That’s funny.
Me too!
This dude is epic
Yep!
The Demon of Reason has single-handily called out every Flat-Earther in this single phrase at 2:54
Not only that, but also Global Warming
And every person of faith
@@randomrise1st72 looking at the orange man😂
@@viperviperviper006 lol no
@@viperviperviper006 Well, he is a demon.
Among Us players: It’s Red. He sus ngl.
Demon of Reason: _That’s an argument out of ignorance._
Well TBF in Among Us there’s usually not enough time or evidence to use reason.
*Demon of Reason randomly appears in the middle of the emergency meeting, wears the accuser's astronout suit with a snap of his fingers, and proceeds to school everyone playing the game.
@@paleoph6168 agreed
@@paleoph6168 This is perfect.
@@paleoph6168 Unfortunately, they won't understand what he is saying and try to vote him out and be baffled that he is not a part of the crew.
honestly the demon of reason is probably the best character ted-ed have ever made. Kudos to whoever thought of him!
Alternative Title:
*Demon of Reason roasts Joseph McCarthy*
Alternative alternative title: Joseph McCarthy DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC
@@ZephLodwick alternative alternative alternative title: DR destroys Mcarthy with ease
@@ZephLodwick *This time, with ACTUAL facts and logic.
Better title
do i hear a fier alarm
"Crazy people don't know they're crazy. But I know I'm crazy therefore I'm not crazy. Isn't that crazy?"
There's one assumption here that crazy people don't know they are crazy
Crazy people can know they are crazy and still be crazy
@@soniadsilva0505 isn't that crazy?
@@soniadsilva0505 Dark empaths
@@soniadsilva0505 Yes but then they are less crazy than the ones who don't know they are crazy. The ones who know they are crazy can also be crazy smart.
Damn that's crazy
bro we need this to be a series like the riddles I love this guy, I found his one on the doctor and bedside fever and I loved it and I saw this morning that you posted a new one and I was so happy!
"Ah, feeling smart, are we?"
The condescension...
Ted-Ed knows its audience lmao
IKR 😂😂😂 savageee
🤣🤣🤣
When we needed him most, he returned.
I absolutely ADORE this character. His voice, mannerisms, personality- brilliant. Whoever created him deserves an award.
Along with the animation and topics, I also love Ted's habit of putting quotes at the start; and that too, good and meaningful ones!
Yeahh🤞🤞
Demon of Reason: "You're falling victim to an *Argument from Ignorance* ; assuming something is true because it hasn't been proven false."
Flat-Earthers in *HALF* a nutshell
Well their idea is proven false million of times, so I guess that makes it worse 😒
I see what you did there! Cheeky, clever demon lover you! 😈😈😈👍
flat earthers got it wrong, it's not the planet that's flat, it's the universe that is a flat
@@Luixxxd1 I don't think anyone knows what the universe is shaped like, sooo...
@@destroyerofworlds4663 we do tho (? th-cam.com/video/iwDK18bcUz4/w-d-xo.html
I mean, granted, as far as observation goes, the universse seems either flat or a geometric supershape
So they DID make this a series! The conspiracies were true!
It’s all coming true
I predict there will be another episode of this series.
a conspiracy? where is your goddamn evidence
1:16 "If the government won't be a voice of reason, I'll have to."
We need this guy irl, and in a lot of governments too...
When I saw this I literally screamed: "YES IT'S MISTER DRAGON!!"
Edit: I know the guy's a demon of reason but he looked like a dragon to me so that's what I screamed out of excitement.
SAME
Demon of reason
Lol
Demon of reason. If you love him then get his name right🤗
Nice profile pic
This is the fallacy that grates on me the most because it seems like so many people around me fall for it. Not that I'm immune to it but I just have caught it so many times that it's become obnoxious.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
- Sagan+Hitchens
just love them
Red sus:
Rest of players: *votes red*
. 。 • ﾟ 。 .
. . 。 。 .
. 。 ඞ 。 . • •
ﾟ Red was An Impostor. 。 .
' 0 Impostor remains 。
ﾟ . . , . .
Yes that's a nice sentiment but the problem is: what is considered extraordinary? How do you decide whether a claim is plausible or implausible?
@@Danicker the amount of lack of proofs ?
or the intensity of leap of faith required for it
@@saneenmohammed1004 yea I get that, but isn't that kind of circular? You're kind of saying that a claim with the least evidence requires to most new evidence to bring it level with competing claims. Which just kind of seems true by definition. And your second point can't really be judged in any objective way. What is a leap of faith to one person will be obvious to another, and what is obvious to one person will be a leap of faith to another
"When somebody makes a claim that contradicts estableshed concensus"
What if the estableshed consensus wasn't proven in the first place? If you rely on the consensus that've never been proven, that's called "status quo bias".
you still would need to bring forth evidence to challenge the consensus if you want to convince anyone. But that is a good point.
bangarang!
The status quo can be challenged when you have evidence the status quo is false.
@@chloejones6240 Evidences are not supposed to convince anybody. If I want to convince people, I would use propaganda and fake news instead.
If the consensus wasn't proven in the first place then you can't really call it "established" can you?
Status quo bias refers to the usual understanding of people on a particular topic and then when they're told to think otherwise, they resist.
On the other hand, when we say "established consensus" we are more accurately talking about a notion that has been formed on the basis of data that was actually there and was visible to both parties in conflict. Usually, this refers to something which has been proven officially(like global warming) or something which is so prominent in people's opinion that it's almost obvious(like Dorothy Kenyan's anti-communist views)
Ted ed: "can you outsmart-"
Me:" *NO* "
No no, these two were actually easy which is why I like Mr. Demon man
You know, besides being a demon
@@calebmurray4438 yeah that’s true
To be fair, you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, Eridan.
Was there even a riddle?
oh hey there homestuck
I encounter a lot of this online. Especially with everything going on right now.
*recently.
Right? Right-wing trolls thrive on forgoing their burden of truth
@@firstname405 then they accuse you of being unpatriotic. It really is going for emotional score points
@@qus.9617 conservative snowflakes are the real virture-signallers
@@firstname405 "facts over feelings" as the typical of them always say
The boi! He back!
“He IS back”
@@anonymousx6398 no one cares about dat now
He'll be back again
YEAH
Yeah
Flat Earther: “you can’t prove the earth is round!”
Me: “I have numerous times, but not once have you tried to prove it is flat.”
They have tried but everything they tried has been proved to be false.
If they say [that the Earth is flat], they can't be more wrong.
The legend is back
The monster, the myth, the legend.
Yes
_The return of the king_
I hope they do many more of these, we are plagued by so many fallacies that are holding back the spread of knowledge and understanding.
Why does discord from my little pony having to fix the American judicial system
You need a being of chaos to deal with the chaos.
@everyone since its discord
Alternative Title:
Demon of Reason roasts Joseph McCarthy
The judicial system wasn't really broken in this case, they just weren't using it properly, and he even mentioned that in the video. 3:11
@@benkutenets2391 exactly. We have laws in place that dictate due process but laws are meaningless if the judges do not follow them on their ruling.
I'm so hyped that the Demon of Reason is a recurring character! Really enjoying this format and its content. I always learn a bit more with each one.
Finally,
I personally like the demon of reason.
Thank you Ted ed, I really enjoy your content
Love it 😊 Burden of truth with or without proof is still a burden to congressional leaders.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences” - Carl Sagan
Red sus:
. 。 • ﾟ 。 .
. . 。 。 .
. 。 ඞ 。 . • •
ﾟ Red was An Impostor. 。 .
' 0 Impostor remains 。
ﾟ . . , . .
“Extraordinary” is a relative term and is best defined with relative perspective in mind.
My point exactly
@@isforshooting what she said
Sounds good, but is nonsense when you look closely enough.
The right evidence is enough. Extraordinary is a subjective term and not logic.
We need more Demon of Reason.
Why?
What do you think?
It’s obvious that he seems to be the only one who does his research and thinks outside and even ahead of the box. Not to mention he is a character that I enjoy to listen to and learn about many things in the process. That should be all that I need to say to support my opinion.
I love that you wrote this in his style.
I imagined this text in his voice
If the demon of reason is the reason of a single person, there's bound to be some flaw as human aren't perfect
You must remember, he has a lot of hindsight
The number of people who make outlandish claims and then say the person they are talking *to* is responsible for providing evidence is INSANE.
...and yet here we are, living in a world where most of the population simply accepts that there is a higher power in the universe (insert whatever god people worship) and that there is an afterlife of sorts, simply because nobody can disprove that.
Neither is responsible for providing evidence that's just your opinion. Perception as such is subjective, Neither can provide evidence, or both can. Nobody is under any obligation to so much as reply to one another unless they so choose to. The burden of proof falls to whomever wants to elaborate by conscious choice. Or no relevant party at all if nobody decides to.
@@user-gz4ve8mw9l Who said anything about opinion?
And even if this were a discussion of opinions, facts and legitimate argumentation still matter. Your take is objectively wrong.
Y E S! Our demon of reason is back!! I do hope this becomes a full series, I love watching him it's really cool!
Everyone always praises animation, Damm this demon got a great voice
3:24 you can see the previous episode’s footage flashing by
Yep. I’m way too high for this title.
Much love, your friends at Rev Media!!
Hey rev Media what's popping
Hahaha
@@justsomepersononyoutube9271 hey mannn!! Love ya😘
@@revmedia8108 hah ...lol
It's really nice to see the "Demon of Reason" again! I love this topic and this character!
I am very hopeful to see more about this.
This whole story with the burden of proof reminds me that much on Russia's famous movie director and pro-governmental political activist Nikita Mikhalkov who once said "I don't have to supply proof if I tell you something. You have to supply proof if you want to refute what I'm telling" - and he is respected by so many people...
You also don't have to believe what someone tells you. They are under NO obligation to prove whatever they claim to you as well. Anymore than you are under any obligation to refute it. Neither has to do anything just because someone state's something doesn't imply they have to prove it. No different than asking a question and therefore implying you expect an answer or response. Just because you inquire doesn't necessarily mean you'll receive an answer.
He's literally a movie director.
He's respected for his FICTION movies. If Americans may film movies about Captain America - why Russians can't make any pro-Russian fiction? Captain America sure does not exist.
I am extremely glad the well dressed logic demon is now a recurring character
Please don’t stop this series, ever
Every one is doing the salute inclusing McCarthy.
Should be a key lesson for all American politicians, left, right , red, blue doesn't matter.
Wrong, 95% of idiots, flat earthers, trickle downers, anti-vaxxers, climate and covid deniers are found on the right. Left wingers do actually believe in science and educate themselves...
@@KuK137
Is that why the left can't even figure out what men and women are? 🤭
You typically can't prove a negative, yet people still make claims and expect others to prove them wrong. I see it all the time. And the response of "go look it up yourself" tells me they don't have proof, but won't admit it.
Ikr.
Nowadays, you can replace the template comment "there's a ton of proof! Stop being lazy and Google it" by "I have 0 proof for my claim. Can you do my homework and find some for me please?"
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a recurring character. Hope to see more!
3:59 That was Bang on. Summarized whole video
His intellect with an undertone humour is what makes me watch it. Everytime.
keep doing this series. people need to know this.
This is the basis of “innocent until proven guilty” of course. However, what we seem to find is, online in particular, people assume “guilty until proven innocent”, which is a ridiculous notion to have
Sadly it's worse than that. These days it's "Guilty until showed up dead". Seriously, people will find you did a thing they don't agree with and send a lynch mob after you for years on end demanding your suicide, doing everything they can to convince people that you should commit suicide.
This sort of thing often happens on Facebook. Someone says something, you ask them for proof, they tell you to 'just Google it'
On any social media, really.
Which is a telltale sign that the person has 0 proof for their claim.
The burden of proof, my favourite! It happens so often in real life, and useful to know
The issue here is that in the time of internet and social media the truth, the facts, the proof, is irrelevant compared to one's opinion and that is a dangerous thing.
"The Burden of Proof lies with the person making the claim."
When someone tell you they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, teach them about the Burden of Proof
Then tell us about how we know your god exists.
@@lizardguyNA it doesn't. The concept of "God" is just a mere notion that describe a poweful entitiy. This idea will just create an endless argument and conflict of who's God on different culture is real. Because the concept of God was made to cover any unexplanable events happened during antiquity period. The idea of God is a reflection on how society interacts with their environment that is why different cultures have different types of their own God because of the experssion of their supernatual entity is limitless.
isn't this the idea behind ''innocent until proven guilty'
I LOVE THIS SERIES!
Also, I love the reference to “Russell’s Floating Teapot”.
Hearing logic is like jazz to my ears
2:34 was when my browser crashed, so I just want to send a quick hello to my FBI agent
Man I wish there was more of this guy
So happy to see the demon of reason again, I hope there are gonna be more videos with him.
"If you disagree ,it becames your responsibility to prove otherwise"
Thank you ,I will use this quote through-out my life.
Doesn't work unless the person is honest. They will just begin attacking your character, distract, goalpost, straw man. You name it. Gotten so bad that politicians make sure they book themselves in to a media organisation that essentially are cheerleaders of their party
I love this form of narration. POLL TO DO IT OFTEN!!!
I saw the Correlation ≠ Causation video just yesterday! AND THE DAY LATER THEY UPLOAD A NEW VIDEO OF THE SAME GUY. Thank you Ted.
This is so relevant today in 2022
Probably the most important fallacy to know how to counter.
Ted Ed always impress me with this animation. ❤️
I need more of this guy.
1:22 Ah yes, the best part.
No its 3:58
Literally got excited when I saw the character again on the thumbnail
3:05 actually, if we could get the Senate to agree on Climate Change a few decades in advance, we would be a in a much better position now.
"Guilty until proven innocent."
It's enough to send good people to jail.
0:21 Why does China has the Imperial Japanese Army's War Flag behind Mao
Big brain
I like how Dorothy Kenyon smiles when the Demon of Reason shows up. Maybe she's heard about his squabble with Meigs.
So is this an inherent fallacy in religious belief??
i mean no, you can believe anything you want. you dont have to prove that. only if you say your god/s (or anything really) has made an interaction with reality (think about adam & eva) then you have to prove that. if you believe there are giant gods that are outside the universe, thats okay.
I love how the Demon of Reason just casually exposes and roasts them all with pure logic... like dang
YES! HE'S BACK. *THE DEMON OF REASON IS BACK!* I love this character.
Unfortunately, a lot of times if the person making the claim is loud and persistent enough, the damage has been done without the need for proof.
"You'll see what I mean soon enough."
Five months later, we finally see what he meant.
YES!! We love love LOVE the demon of reason!! Thank you ted-ed for bringing him back!
3:47 bruh captain underpants cameo
This is also known Hitchen's Razor.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
3:54 Made me cry
We want more of this!!!
I just love this series so much!!!:):) Keep going Ted!!
Ps: Absolutely!! Love the narrators voice
I was hoping this would become a series
my wish has been fufilled
Religious people watching this: REEEEEEEEE!
One of my favorite parts of these stories that I don't think many people catch onto is that these stories are constantly reassuring us that the past is always worse than the present. The main way that the demon of reason concludes these episodes is by bringing us further in time when humans eventually figured this out for ourselves.
A lot of people say that they want the demon of reason to exist in real life but eventually we do figure things out and very importantly, we have figured a lot of things out.
It's just a nice, hopeful thing to reassure ourselves with as everything appears to take a further nose dive downwards: the past is always worse.
I love the style of these fallacy vids! keep making TED
I am enjoying this Demon of Reason series!
Thank you!
You lost me around 2:48. If the evidence “suggests” a conclusion, that doesn’t prove the conclusion.
What if the evidence is incomplete? What if the evidence is misinterpreted?
What if a consensus is reach based on incomplete/misinterpreted evidence?
If any of these conditions exist, one can’t claim they have satisfied the burden of proof. Am I wrong?
they say suggest because there was either no consensus before or less of one
That's the height of cynical hypocrisy - injecting fallacies-based propaganda into a video about fallacies and propaganda.
That’s more of a semantics issue. In the scientific community, and academia in general, it is recognized that nothing can ever be definitively proven, for that exact reason. Just one study showing different results that lead to a different conclusion would be all it takes to disprove any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law, and this does happen on occasion. You can never definitively say that anything is “proven”, since you may just lack that one bit of evidence that would entirely tear it apart. However, evidence can so strongly suggest a certain conclusion that it can be considered “proven” until sufficient evidence is presented to prove otherwise. At a certain point it becomes your job to prove that the evidence gathered so far, or the conclusions reached using that evidence, is wrong. And then if you want to suggest your own alternative, you still have to provide further evidence that your alternative is correct.
@@whatsagoodusername823
That is not a semantics issue, that is a source reliability issue.
What if there are only claims of alleged evidence - instead of actual evidence?
What if conclusions are presupposed, and contradict real established science?
Case in point: "manmade climate change" is a worse pseudoscience than Creationism.
who wants this to be made into a series
cause we love this guy :)
I'm pretty sure most people in the comments (including myself) do
Wow, this logic will make winning argument so easy
Really, i'd love to see more of this. If there's one demon that i love, it has to be this guy.
So burden of proof falls onto the accuser. Got it.
Me: The Earth isn't Flat
Flat Earthers: Are you blind? Here's my flat brain too
Me: Huh..... If only showing proof is actual proof.
Very happy that I now know about this character! Never knew about the previous video he was in.
Please keep this up! I love it!
They made me a notification I couldn’t refuse❤️
The music when he meets Mccarthy is the main reason why this is my favorite episode.
"You can make a religion out of this"
🙃🙃🙃🍺🍺🍺🍺🙃🙃🙃
I believe in this religion but imo we need a better version of it
This is a sterling series. It doesn't antagonize those of unfortunate and inaccurate opinion, but merely introduces an easily digestible, fundamental rule, that without trigger or unnecessary bombast, reveals itself as antithetical to that opinion. Carry on!
this remind me a lot of poeple stating that "you can't proove god isn't real".
Yeah God is more in the "can't be conclusively proven true or flase" though there are things like the miracles at Lourdes and the fact that Padre Pio and St Bernedettes bodies haven't decomposed that lay credence to the fact that he does. But that's a very long argument I'm not interested in getting into right now
@@frostyblade8842 too bad argument for miracle are always hilarious to read.
a dragon or a unicorn are also in the "can't be conclusively proven true or flase" category that's called irrefutability.
@@hexa1905 Like the multiverse theory
@@lukecox6317 correct until string theory become viable multiverse should be considered irrefutable
@@hexa1905 Well you could imagine proofs that a dragon or unicorn exists. Someone could find one and bring it to the public's eye for example. Meanwhile, we can't really imagine a proof that they do not exist, short of a complete analysis of the Earth or other absurd stuff. Since one side of the argument could probably be proven if true, but has not, whereas the other side can not reasonably be proven true, tends to show that dragons and unicorns do not exist. It's not a proof, but quite good evidence nonetheless.
For god, if you consider miracles, then the same applies. No miracle has, up to my knowledge, been confirmed, and as such miracles probably do not exist.
For many people however, god exists but does not directly influence the world. In this case, no argument can be proposed to show one way or the other. It's like claiming that there are invisible giant ants everywhere that are not noticeable in any way. This claim can be true or false, and nothing can show it to be one way or the other. It does not matter since it does not influence our life in any way. God's existence, however, influences some people's life. If people live a better life because they believe in god, it's only positive for the rest of the world. Therefore I recommend believing in god if you want to, especially if it makes your life better :) And not believing in god if you don't want to. But please do not persecute people over it...